Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual departmental reports, 1924-1925"

See other formats




I 



frsS 

hi la I 
/ 



3- 






Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/annualdept7s192425cana 



DOMINION OF CANADA 



ANNUAL 

DEPARTMENTAL 

REPORTS 



1924-25 



VOL. VII 




OTTAWA 

F. A. ACLAND 

PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 

1927 



NOTE 



This edition of the annual reports of the various departments of the Govern- 
ment of the Dominion of Canada is intended to meet the needs of institutions, 
chiefly in the nature of Legislative and University Libraries, which in past 
years had received copies of these reports under the title of "Sessional Papers," 
represented by several cloth-bound volumes of approximately equal bulk, the 
number of reports to a volume being determined by the size of the respective 
reports. The House of Commons in 1925 ceased to order annual departmental 
reports to be printed as Sessional Papers and the annual reports of 1923-24 are 
therefore the latest appearing under that title. In the present issue of these 
reports the same general form and appearance have been preserved as when they 
appeared as "Sessional Papers.'' The number printed is limited and particulars 
as to the selling price of the set of several volumes may be obtained from the 
King's Printer, Ottawa. 



ANNUAL DEPARTMENTAL 
REPORTS 



VOLUME I 

Auditor General, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925— Vol. I, Parts "a" to "d" 
and Vol. II, Parts A to N. 

VOLUME II 

Auditor General, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925—Vol. Ill, Parts O to ZZ 

VOLUME III 

Public Accounts, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Customs and Excise; Department of, containing accounts of Revenue with statements 
relative to the Imports, Exports, and Excise of the Dominion of Canada, for the fiscal 
year ended March 31, 1925. 

Shipping Report (Customs and Excise), containing the Statements of Navigation and 
Shipping for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Trade and Commerce; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Weights and Measures, Electricity and Gas Inspection Services (Trade and Com- 
merce), for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Commissioner of Patents and Copyrights, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Dominion Statistician (Trade and Commerce), for the fiscal year ended March 31, 
1925. 



Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada (Trade and Commerce), for the crop 
year ended August 31, 1925. 



Interior; Department of the, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 



Immigration and Colonization; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 
Indian Affairs; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

VOLUME IV 

Trade of Canada (Imports for Consumption and Exports), for the fiscal year ended March 
31, 1925. 

VOLUME V 

Mines; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Agriculture; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

National Defence; Department of, (Militia and Air Service), for the fiscal year ended 
March 31, 1925. 

National Defence; Department of, (Naval Service), for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Health; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Superintendent of Penitentiaries, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for the year ended September 30, 1925. 

Secretary of State; Department of the, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

VOLUME VI 

Civil Service Commission, for the calendar year ended December 31, 1925. 

External Affairs; Department of the Secretary of State for, for the fiscal year ended March 
31, 1925. 

Labour; Department of the, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Public Printing and Stationery; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Marine and Fisheries (Marine) ; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Marine and Fisheries (Fisheries) ; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Post Office; Department of the, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Public Works; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

VOLUME VII 

Railways and Canals; Department of, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 

Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, for the calendar year ended December 31, 1925. 

Chief Electoral Officer (Fifteenth General Election), 1925. 



DOMINION OF CANADA 



ANNUAL REPORT 



OF THE 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS 
AND CANALS 



For the Fiscal Year from April 1, 1924, 
to March 31, 1925 



Submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter 35, 

Section 33 




OTTAWA 

F. A. ACLAND 

PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 

1925 



To General His Excellency the Right Honourable Lord Byng of Vimy } G.C.B., 
G.C.M.G., M.V.O., Governor General and Commander in Chief of the 
Dominion of Canada. 

May It Please Your Excellency: 

The undersigned has the honour to present to Your Excellency the Annual 
Report of the Department of Railways and Canals, of the Dominion of Canada, 
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925. 

GEORGE P. GRAHAM, 

Minister of Railways and Canals. 



G^ 



£AWI l 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1. Report of the Deputy Minister 5 

2. Annual report of Canadian National System 12 

3. Annual report of Canadian Government Railways, separately shown. . 43 

4. Annual report of Central Vermont Railway 52 

5. Income statement, Canadian National Railwaj^s, including Central 

Vermont, showing separately result of operation of former con- 
stituent companies in Canada and in the United States 58 

6. Annual report of departmental accountant 63 

7. Annual report of chief engineer on state of Canals 84 



6059— if 



REPORT 

OF THE 

DEPUTY MINISTER OF RAILWAY AND CANALS 

FOR THE YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1925. 

To the Right Hon. George P. Graham, 
Minister of Railways and Canals. 

Sir, — I have the honour to submit herewith the annual report of the 
Department of Railways and Canals for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925. 
Those portions of the report dealing with the operation of the Canadian 
National Railways and subsidiary concerns of necessity refer to the calendar 
year as required by standard railway accounting practice. 

Following the reorganization of the management and the consolidation of 
Canadian National lines, as set forth from year to year in previous annual 
reports, the results of operation are given in consolidated form, and in such 
report the details of individual operations of component parts are now merged. 
During the period of absorption and reorganization it has been the practice 
to bring down separately, for purposes of comparison and contrast with previous 
years, statements showing the financial results of operation of the several roads 
and systems which are now operated as a whole. Now that the transition 
period has been passed and the financing of the system is being done almost 
entirely in the name of and by the Canadian National Railway Company, the 
iinancial relationships are largely a matter of intercorporate book-keeping. 
It has, therefore, become increasingly difficult to bring down both system and 
corporate reports, and while corporate financial results will, as far as may be 
necessary, be carefully preserved in the books and records of the Canadian 
National Railway Company, the practice of bringing down separate state- 
ments of operation of the component parts of the system will, after the issue 
of this report, in all probability be a thing of the past. 

Mileage at December 31, 1924 
The following statement sets out in brief form the mileage comprised in 
the Canadian National System, the controlled but separately operated mileage, 
as well as the mileage of the electric lines. Although new mileage is gradually 
being placed in operation, especially in Western Canada, and the Inverness 
Railway and Coal Company, 60-07 miles, was taken over under lease, April 
1, 1924, the mileage today is less than it was in 1921. This is due in part to 
corrections, but chiefly to the deductions of mileage now rendered inactive by 
coordination and economies in operation under the reorganized management. 
The mileage figures as of December 31, 1924, are as follows: 

Miles 

System steam mileage 21,872-19 

Controlled by constituent companies, but separately operated — 

Central Vermont 483-47 

Thousand Island Railway 6-00 

Total steam 22,361-66 

Electric 
Canadian National Electric Lines — 

Toronto Suburban 58-31 

Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto 61-84 

120 15 

Montreal and Southern Countries 53-66 

Oshawa Railway Company 9-43 

Total Electric 183 24 

Total— all lines 22,544 90 

4 



REPORT OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER 5 

1923 1924 Changes 

Owned mileage 20,296-12 20,267-60 Dec. 28-52 

LeTsed mileale ... 1448-72 1,503-70 Inc. 54-98 

^^^;:.".::;:::::;:::::: loe-os iqq-89 Dec. m 

21,850-89 21,872-19 

1923 1924 Changes 

Atlantic Reeion 2,760-06 2,803-83 Inc. 43-75 

Central Sn V. :;. 7,830-91 7,669-24 Dec. 161-67 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 991-69 991-69 

Western Region 10,268-21 10,407-43 Inc. 139-22 

21,850-89 21,872-19 
Net increase in operated mileage 21-30 miles 

Operating results — 1924 
Traffic during the first three months of 1924 was in excess of that of the 
same period in 1923. Much of this was due to the movement, early in the year, 
of the previous year's crops. During the remainder of the year business was 
in a depressed condition and Canadian National revenues, in common with 
those of other railways, suffered also because of the relatively small grain crop 
and consequent diminished movement. Owing to these reasons operating 
revenues decreased by $17,547,305.06. The decrease in freight earnings was 
more than met by reductions in operating expenses aggregating $14,360,907.46. 
Including the Central Vermont, the gross operating revenue for 1924 was 
$243,968,934.94 and the gross operating expenditure $225,642,058.50, leaving 
the net revenue from railway operation $18,326,876.44, as compared with 
$21,381,548.69 in 1923. After the deduction of taxes and non-operating charges, 
and the addition of non-operating income, the railways had $15,001,534.50 to 
apply on fixed charges, compared with $13,364,875.65 the previous year. Fixed 
charges, which were $66,144,226.34 in 1923 had grown to $70,759,016.23 in 
1924, so that although the railways were able to provide almost two millions 
more towards meeting them, the total deficit nevertheless increased from 
$52,779,350.69 in 1923 to $55,757,481.73 in 1924. 

Financial retrospect 
It is now possible to review the financial developments of the past five 
years in the national railway situation. The reorganization of the manage- 
ment, in October, 1922, has resulted in marked improvement in operating 
results, improvement which it has been possible by reason of economies, to 
maintain, notwithstanding decreases in traffic and lower rates. The net oper- 
ating results for the five year period were as follows : — ■ 

Calendar year 1920, deficit $34,532,701 76 

1921, " 11,543,577 69 

1922, surplus 2,886,711 55 

1923, " 20,430,649 08 

1924, " 17,244,251 48 

Property improvements 
The rundown state of the properties taken over has necessitated the 
provision of a great deal of capital, and during the last five fiscal years $243,- 
756,781 has had to be provided on investment account — new construction, 
betterments, property acquirements, and new equipment. This, however, 
does not represent the total financial requirements, as during the five calendar 
years under review $572,825,435.69 was added to the debt of the railways now 
comprising the National System — $112,781,639.27 being debt due the investing 
public and $460,043,854.42 debt due the Canadian Government. 

The Case of the Grand Trunk 

It is now five years since the Canadian Government became responsible 

for Grand Trunk financing, and in view of the remarkable attitude of a section 

of the British press it is worthy of note that during that period the Grand Trunk 

has required loans and advances from the Government amounting to $103,578,- 



6 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

182.33. as well as $15,000,000 on Grand Trunk Pacific account. And in addi- 
tion to the guarantee in perpetuity of interest on certain debenture stocks, as 
set out in the acquisition agreement — stocks aggregating a par value of $216,- 
207.141, with interest requirements totalling $8,988,633.77 annually — the 
Government has also guaranteed, on Grand Trunk account, since acquisition, 
two bond issues of twenty-five million dollars each, and floated an equipment 
note issue of $12,000,000. 

Guaranteed Bond Issues 
Prior to the reorganization and the bringing into effect of the Act to incor- 
porate the Canadian National Railways (Chap. 13, 1919) in January, 1923, it 
was the practice, in the guaranteeing of bonds for railway purposes, to float 
the issues in the name of the particular corporate entity which actually required 
the financial assistance. Thus it was a comparatively easy matter, from the 
published reports, to trace the growth of such financing from year to year. 
Since reorganization, and under the legal status now pertaining to the Canadian 
National Railway Company, guaranteed bond issues are floated in the new 
corporate name of the Canadian National Railway Company, and from the 
sums realized by the sale of these guaranteed securities the various intercor- 
porate necessities within the system are supplied. The issues themselves are 
of printed public record, but the allocation of the various sums advanced is 
now entirely a matter of company book-keeping and departmental record. 
A statement concerning the guaranteed bond issues which have been put out 
since reorganization will be found appended. From these issues, there has been 
advanced to the Grand Trunk Railway, by the Canadian National Railway 
Company, no less than $24,899,157.62 out of the proceeds of guaranteed bond 
issues which were of record as of December 31, 1924. This in addition to the 
aid referred to in a preceding paragraph. All of which is of interest in view 
of the unfair attitude of a section of the British press with respect to the taking 
over of the Grand Trunk, in regard to which transaction Canada and Canadian 
credit have been subjected abroad to much misrepresentation. 

Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern 
A great deal of the increase in debt of the Canadian National lines in recent 
years has been due to the unsound financial condition of the Grand Trunk 
Pacific, which was abandoned by the Grand Trunk in March, 1919. As will 
be seen from the detailed reports submitted herewith, there were outstanding, 
on December 31, 1924, loans made to the Grand Trunk Pacific prior to that 
default amounting to $20,539,357.10. Since default, and the establishment 
of the Receivership, the Government has had to advance, to December 31, 1924, 
$49,077,692.36, which, with unpaid interest, now constitutes a liability of 
$59,222,385.86, as set out in the balance sheet. The provision of these sums 
under receivership constitutes a first claim against the property. The Dominion 
has also had to advance $19,543,640.07 to pay interest guaranteed by the Domin- 
ion Government, as well as Provincial Government guarantees. 

There remains, of course, Canadian Northern financing, which has been 
heavy, though not out of proportion in view of the fact that the Canadian 
Northern steam and electric railways cover 9,995 miles, or almost one-half of 
the Canadian National system. It is not generally understood, in considering 
Canadian Northern requirements, that the mileage of that system was twice 
as great as the Grand Trunk lines, and almost four times as great as the Grand 
Trunk Pacific and branch lines. To meet the requirements of this immense 
mileage the Government, since 1920, has had to advance $176,522,411.99 on 
Canadian Northern account. It has as well guaranteed two bond issues of 
$25,000,000 and one of $17,000,000 in the name of the Canadian Northern 
Company, and made possible an equipment trust issue of $15,000,000. Since 
the financing of the railways has been taken over by the Canadian National 
Railway Company, the former Canadian Northern has also received advances 
amounting to $48,202,877.96. 



REPORT OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER 7 

Canadian National Company Financing 

Since the change from corporate to the more general form of financing 
there have been five issues of guaranteed bonds and two issues of equipment 
notes, one for $22,500,000, in August, 1923, which was guaranteed, and one 
for $9,375,000, in July, 1924, which was not guaranteed. As a matter of fact, 
under what is known as the Philadelphia plan whereby 25 per cent of an equip- 
ment purchase is provided in cash and the balance, represented by the equip- 
ment trust notes, is secured by a mortgage on the rolling stock purchased, 
subject to repayment by amortization, it is no longer necessary to add the 
additional security afforded by the guarantee of the Government. The trans- 
action stands on its own feet as it were. 

Public loans guaranteed by the Government have been put out as follows 
since reorganization: — 



Date 


Issue 


Amount 


Discount 


Proceeds 


Feb. 1/24 


30-year bonds $ 

3 " 


50,000,000 
20,000,000 
26,000,000 
18,000,000 
17,000,000 


97-813% = $l,093,500.... 
98|% = 350,000.... 
94 % = 1,560,000.... 
99|%, = 157,500.... 
961%, = 637,500.... 


$ 48,906,500 


July 1/24 


19,650,000 


Sept. 15/24 


30 " 


24,440,000 


Feb. 15/25.... 


5 " 


17,842,500 


" 15/25 


10 " 


16,362,500 








Total 


$131,000,000 


$ 127,201,500 









The last above-mentioned issue was made in the name of the Canadian 
Northern Railway, under Dominion Chap. 11, 1918. The reason for this was 
the fact that the proceeds were for the distinctive purpose of meeting a maturing 
Canadian Northern issue. However, neither it nor the eighteen million 
Canadian National issue of February 15, 1925, fall within the scope of this 
review. The eighteen million issue was negotiated for branch lines and Toronto 
terminal purposes, and falls within the fiscal year 1924-25, which ended on 
March 31st last, but not within the calendar year covered by the Canadian 
National report. 

The three guaranteed issues appearing in the statement of funded debt 
held by the public in the Canadian National Railway report for 1924, printed 
herewith, are the fifty, twenty and twenty-six million issues enumerated above. 
Including bank interest, the amount realized from these was, respectively, 
$49,161,502.36, $19,784,915.41 and $24,800,582.49, and these sums have been 
expended as follows: — 



Canadian 
National 
Railway 



Canadian 
Northern 
Railway 



Grand Trunk 
Railway 
System 



Total 



$50,000,000 Issue- 
Interest due public 

Refunding and retiring. 
Capital 



$20,000,000 Issue- 
Interest due public 

Refunding and retiring. 
Capital 



$26, 000, 000 Issue- 
Interest due public 

Refunding and retiring. 
Capital 



1,224,975 00 
8,862,303 64 



1,747,012 28 

9,551,319 35 

11,624,845 86 



2,002,642 33 

1,895,236 36 

12,253,167 64 



3,749,654 61 
12,671,530 71 
32,740,317 04 



10,087,278 64 



750,000 00 
5,411,495 17 



22,923,177 49 

6,338,981 73 
1,352,726 29 
3,088,012 44 



16,151,046 23 



2,843,699 78 



49,161,502 36 

6,338,981 73 

2,102,726 29 

11,343,207 39 



6,161,495 17 

14,254 17 
1,366,705 70 
3,015,231 00 



10,779,720 46 

4,910,799 38 
4,050,221 02 
5,538,959 61 



2,843,699 78 

713,730 49 
1,467,400 00 
3,723,281 12 



19,784,915 41 

5,638,784 04 

6,884,326 72 

12,277,471 73 



4,396,190 87 



14,499,980 01 



5,904,411 61 



24,800,582 49 



8 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Financial Reorganization 

In his commentary on the year's operations, Sir Henry Thornton, President 
and Chairman of the National Railway Board, again refers to the all-important 
question of capitalization, and reports that active consideration is being given 
to the policy to be followed in connection therewith " and the extent to which, 
if at all, advances made and capital held by the Government should be written 
down to a figure commensurate with the earning prospects of the property". 
The President and Chairman adds that the problem is proving both difficult 
and complicated, but it is hoped shortly to be able to present to the proper 
authorities a consistent scheme for consideration. 

This question of financial reorganization of the Canadian National System 
is one of the most pressing problems that today confront the management and 
the Government. The greater part of the Canadian National mileage was 
formerly privately owned. Due to over-expansion and to conditions due to 
the war, these railways found it impossible to carry on and were taken over by 
the Government. Had the railways been obliged to liquidate their affairs, 
readjustment of capital charges would have taken place at that point. Less 
drastic methods resulted in the transfer of these railway properties to the 
Government of Canada, and with them the heavy capital charges which private 
ownership had found it impossible to carry. 

The Funded Debt 

The long-term funded debt of the Canadian National Railways is given 
in the balance sheet as $2,056,181,517.70. Of this sum $913,913,082 was sup- 
plied by the investing public, and two-thirds of this debt due the public is 
guaranteed by the Dominion, of which it is, therefore, a contingent liability. 

Forming part of the long-term funded debt are advances totalling $560,- 
397,957.64 by the Dominion Government to Railways now included in the 
National System. On this immense sum interest amounting to $130,157,- 
992.28 has accrued. This the railways have not been able to pay, and accrued 
interest has been added to principal, though in such cases it is not compounded. 
Thus the total advances, including interest, now amounting to $690,555,949.92, 
as indicated in the balance sheet. 

Included in the $2,056,181,517.70 given as the sum of its long-term funded 
debt in the balance sheet is an item of $451,712,484.98, which represents the 
amount Canada has spent in the construction, maintenance and operation of 
former Canadian Government railways, such as the Intercolonial, the Prince 
Edward Island Railway, eastern branch lines and the Transcontinental, the 
eastern division of the projected Grand Trunk Pacific. It has not been the 
practice to reckon interest on these advances to the original Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways, so that the item referred to is exclusive of interest. The inclu- 
sion of these advances on appropriation account, Canadian Government Rail- 
ways, among the liabilities of the Canadian National lines is entirely a book- 
keeping requirement rendered necessary by the fact that a corresponding item 
is included among the investments in road and equipment on the asset side of 
the ledger. It is well, however, to point out that this item of $451,712,484.98 
is not a liability of the Canadian National Railways, though it is money which 
the Dominion has put into railways apart altogether from the properties taken 
over by reason of the failure of private ownership. 

Interest Charges 

The question of interest has been referred to. Owing to the varying prac- 
tices in the financial operations of the respective systems which make up the 
Canadian National lines, this question of interest of itself presents difficulties 
when the possibility of uniform financial practice is being considered. As 
already stated, no interest is reckoned on appropriations to former Canadian 



REPORT OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER 9 

Government Railways, for the construction of which there were no public 
borrowings. Nor is interest accrued on the amount due the Government for 
unpaid interest on loans and advances, which amounted to $130,157,992.28 on 
December 31, 1924. The above sum represents simple interest on the $560,- 
397,957.64 advanced by the Government to former privately-owned roads. 
In 1924 alone the accrued interest on this account amounted to $31,271,043. 
Five years ago the corresponding item was $14,346,831.69. 

Interest due the public cannot be deferred as is interest due the Govern- 
ment. If not earned it must be borrowed; and, if borrowed from the public, 
interest on such amount is compounding from year to year. Last year (1924) 
fixed charges due the public amounted to $38,361,704.14; for 1920 the corre- 
sponding item was $31,055,318.28. Interest ' charges due the Government and 
the public combined, which amounted to $45,402,149.97 in 1920, had grown 
to $69,632,747.14 in 1924. Including the Central Vermont, the total interest 
charges last year were $70,759,016.23. The rapid growth of interest charges 
emphasizes the importance of the examination of the capital structure of the 
Canadian National Railways to which Sir Henry Thornton has referred. 

Canadian Government Railways 

Included in the annual report is a separate financial statement with respect 
to Canadian Government Railways. These are the Intercolonial and Prince 
Edward Island Railways and branch lines, the Transcontinental, or Eastern 
Section of the Grand Trunk Pacific project, and the Hudson Bay Railway, with 
a mileage of 4,599-52. These railways continue to be vested in the Crown, but 
since November 20, 1918, have been operated otherwise than by the Government 
directly. In November, 1918, they were turned over to the late Canadian 
Northern Board for operation and control and, on reorganization, they were 
handed over to the Canadian National Railway Board by Order in Council, 
of January 20, 1923, for similar purposes. The assets of these properties are 
valued at $440,225,994.34. Government advances for road and equipment to 
December 31, 1924, amounted to $422,022,860.84, and, of the same date, there 
was a debit balance on profit and loss account of $11,846,108.93. This is the 
sum of the deficit which has accrued since January 1, 1921, from which date, 
under authority of item 341, Chap. 54, 1921, the receipts and revenues of the 
Canadian Government Railways have been applied to working expenditures and 
a profit and loss account established by the management. 

The combined roads included in the former Canadian Government Railway 
System (as distinguished from the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and 
the Grand Trunk Pacific) had a net revenue from railway operation last year 
of $1,348,227.29 and, after non-operating income and deductions, there remained 
a net income of $1,310,618.66. There are no fixed charges, the construction or 
purchase of these railways having been financed directly by the Government 
without recourse to public borrowings. 

The total investment on capital account is $424,784,149.79. The principal 
items of this account are : — 

National Transcontinental Railway $ 170, 920, 550 14 

Intercolonial Railway 147,872,749 02 

Rolling stock 35,531,286 96 

Quebec bridge 22,640,228 46 

Hudson Bay Railway 14,857,383 89 

Prince Edward Island Railway 13, 225, 467 33 

Quebec and Saguenay Railway 7,803, 163 63 

International Railway 3,060,461 12 

Long Lac cut-off 2,826,583 05 

Lawlor Building, Toronto 1,230,673 99 

Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway 927,836 07 

New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Ry 888, 565 54 

Lake Superior Branch (leased) 508, 947 81 

The loss on the operation of the St. John and Quebec Railway under lease 
from the province of New Brunswick was $257,342.97 for the year. For 1923 
the loss, (operating deficit plus rent,) was $340,527. 



10 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Central Vermont Railway 

As successors to the Grand Trunk, the Canadian National Railway Com- 
pany own 82,191,100 of the $3,000,000 capital stock of the Central Vermont 
Railway. The long-term funded debt of the company amounts to $32,176,- 
023.54. Included in this total are notes of the railway for $8,041,905.52 held 
by the Canadian National Railway Company, and an item of $8,208,418.02 
representing advances necessary to provide for deficits and capital expenditures. 
Those advances increased from $5,840,512.15 as of December 31, 1923, to $8,208,- 
418.02 as of December 31, 1924, an increase of $2,367,905.87. Of this increase 
capital expenditures accounted for $1,117,153.64. Profit and loss debit balance 
(accumulated deficit) at December 31, 1924, was $4,292,854.07. The deficit 
for the year was $897,062.51, as compared with $1,081,675.75 for 1923. Mileage 
operated in 1924 was 493-02, the gross receipts $8,380,752.39, and the gross 
expenses $7,298,127.43. Of the earnings $6,272,346.18 was from freight and 
$1,241,838.78 from passengers; freight carried amounted to 4,383,925 tons, 
passengers carried numbered 891,143. The road has 86 locomotives, 102 pas- 
senger coaches and 2,594 freight and work cars. 

Corporate Results 

Included in the report are three statements of Income account, summar- 
izing operating results so as to show (1) Canadian National Railways, including 
Central Vermont; (2) Canadian National lines in Canada, and (3) Canadian 
National lines in the United States. It is this presentation of corporate results 
that is becoming increasingly difficult in view of unified financing in the name 
of the Canadian National Railway Company, and this method of presenting 
results will likely have to be discontinued though such detail will, as far as may 
be required in corporate relations, be preserved in the books and accounts of 
the management. 

Gross earnings, including the Central Vermont, in 1924, were $243,968,- 
934.94; earning of Canadian Lines, $201,224,493.13, and of United States lines, 
$34,363,689.42. Gross operating expenses, including Central Vermont, were 
$225,642,058.50; of Canadian lines $189,460,403.90, and of United States lines, 
$28,883,527.16. Tax accruals, uncollectible revenues and miscellaneous opera- 
tions, including Central Vermont, totalled $5,239,891.25 for the year; Canadian 
lines $3,471,164.64 and United States lines, $1,538,069.82. Fixed charges, all 
lines, including Central Vermont, were $70,759,016.23; on Canadian lines, 
$68,730,216.25, and on United States lines, $902,530.89. The total deficit, all 
lines, including Central Vermont, was $55,757,481.73; Canadian lines $51,139,- 
160.67 and United States lines $3,721,258.55. 

Net revenues from railway operation were: Canadian National lines, 
$17,244,251.48; Central Vermont, $1,082,624.96; Canadian lines, $11,764,- 
089.23; United States lines, $5,480,162.25. Of the Canadian lines the Grand 
Trunk had an operating surplus of $14,075,381.01, and the Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways an operating surplus of $1,348,227.29. The Canadian Northern 
Railway System incurred an operating deficit of $911,980.57, compared with 
82,593,804.49 the previous year, and the Grand Trunk Pacific an operating 
deficit of $2,747,538.50, as compared with $3,076,578.39 in 1923. 

Report of the Departmental Accountant 

Since Confederation the department has expended $1,298,529,333.59, as 

follows : — 

Railways $ 926,941,230 89 

Quebec bridge 22,165,875 13 

Canals 224,785,335 62 

Miscellaneous 46,029,420 86 



REPORT OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER 11 

During the same period there has been received a grand total revenue of 
$413,502,969.81, of which $391,866,392.09 is attributable to railways and $21,636,- 
577.72 to canals. The railway item is as of December 31, 1920, since which date 
receipts and revenues of Canadian Government Railways have been applied 
by the management towards working expenses. The revenue from canals is 
now confined to hydraulic and other rents, elevator charges, wharfage, etc., 
tolls having been abolished almost a quarter of a century ago on mutual agree- 
ment with the United States. Revenue received last year on canal account 
was $913,075.27, compared with $900,575.26 for the previous fiscal year. Of 
this revenue $362,596.97 was attributable to Port Colborne elevator. 

Departmental expenditures during the fiscal year 1924-25 amounted to 
$16,718,540.31, the largest item of which was $9,909,636.95 on the Welland Ship 
Canal. Canal expenditures, general, accounted for $2,928,181.98 and expen- 
ditures under the Canada Highways Act, $2,925,163.92; Railway Commission 
maintenance cost, $212,411.23, and disbursements under the Employees Com- 
pensation Act, $266,889.52. As explained in last year's report, this Act was 
formerly administered by the Department of Finance. It transpired, however, 
that the bulk of the expenditure was on account of Canadian Government 
Railways, which made it necessary for the Department of Railways to maintain 
an audit and keep certain accounting records. It was found that this depart- 
ment could, with very little additional work, administer the Act as a whole. 
This was authorized by the Department of Finance. Thus, the data appearing 
in the Accountant's report, as respects the operation of the Employees' Com- 
pensation Act relates not to this department only, but to all departments of 
the public service. 

Repokt of the Chief Engineer 

By the canal system of Canada 1,831 miles of waterway have been opened 
to navigation. The through St. Lawrence and Great Lakes route, between 
Montreal and the head of Lake Superior, comprises 74 miles of canal, with 49 
locks and 1,140 miles of river and lake waters, or a total of 1,214 miles. The 
minimum depth of water on this route, at normal low water level, is 14 feet. 
The report of the Chief Engineer is confined to the engineering aspects of canal 
construction, maintenance and development, but it may not be out of place 
here to point out that last year, a year of moderate crop, the Great Lakes water- 
way provided transport for 200 million bushels of wheat, almost 42 millions 
bushels of oats and 23 million bushels of barley. During the season 30,700 
vessels, aggregating 16,810,086 tons passed through the Canadian canals, 
carrying 208,587 passengers and 12,869,097 tons of freight. There was an 
increase in vessels, tonnage and in freight transported, although during the 
season of 1924, the three prairie Provinces produced 216 million less bushels 
of wheat and 162 million less bushels of oats than in 1923. 

A feature of the 1924 canal traffic was the large increase in grain down the 
Welland and St. Lawrence canals, materially increasing the total traffic on those 
canals beyond that of any previous year. The increase in Welland canal traffic 
alone was 12 per cent over the previous year. On November 29, 1924, a cairn 
and tablet were erected near the Allanburg Bridge to commemorate the cente- 
nary of the turning of the first sod in the construction of the original Welland 
Canal. 

The one million bushel extension to the Port Colborne elevator (increasing 
the elevator's capacity to three million bushels) was completed in September, 
1924, and, after the necessary machinery had been installed by the Depart- 
ment, the new portion of the elevator received its first shipment of grain early 
in November. During the past fiscal year the Government elevator received 
59,489,616 bushels of grain, an increase of about 3 per cent over the previous 
year. Seventy per cent of this grain was from Fort William and the remainder 
from the United States. 



12 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Welland Ship Canal 

The proposed ship canal leaves lake Ontario at the original mouth of Ten- 
Mile creek, now known as Port Weller, about 3 miles east of Port Dalhousie, 
where a harbour of entry is under construction, and follows an entirely different 
route from the present canal as far south as Allanburg. From here it proceeds 
along the line of the existing canal to a point about one mile north of the village 
of Humberstone, where another diversion about two and one-half miles in 
length is made to the east of the present waterway. The route of the present 
canal is then followed for the final half mile to the Lake Erie entrance at Port 
Colborne. The total distance traversed from lake to lake will be 25 miles. 
The difference in level between the two lakes, 325^ feet, will be overcome by 
seven lift locks, most of which are now well advanced towards completion, each 
having a lift of 463^2 feet. The locks are over 800 feet long and 80 feet wide in 
the clear and will provide a depth of 30 feet of water over the mitre sills. The 
width of the canal prism at bottom is to be 200 feet. A new breakwater, at 
present under construction, will be built at Port Colborne, extending 2,000 feet 
farther into the lake than the existing structure. At Port Weller, the lake 
Ontario entrance, extensive harbour works have now been nearly completed. 
The route of the new canal has been divided for purposes of construction into 
eight sections numbered in order from Port Weller southerly. All of these 
are now under construction with the exception of section 6, tenders for the 
construction of which have been called for. This section lies between Port 
Robinson and Welland, its length being slightly over V/i miles. The work 
to be performed will include the dredging and enlargement of the present canal 
prism, the diversion of the Welland river, which crosses the line of the canal 
at the north end of the town of Welland, by means of a large siphon culvert, 
the building of watertight banks, concrete protection for slopes, etc. 

For the various classes of work involved in the construction of the entire 
canal, the following percentages are now estimated as having been completed: 
rock excavation, 43 per cent; earth excavation, 48 per cent; watertight embank- 
ments, 70 per cent; concrete, 52 per cent; and reinforcing steel, 62 per cent. 
Total cost to March 31, 1925, was $50,772,092.77. 

St. Lawrence Ship Canal Investigation 

The terms of reference to the Joint Board of Engineers representing both 
Canada and the United States were adopted by the Canadian Government by 
Order in Council, P.C. 106, on January 23, 1925. The concurrence of the 
United States Government is dated March 17, 1925, and the instructions to the 
Canadian section of the Joint Engineering Board were issued by you, as Chair- 
man of the National Advisory Committee, on March 31. 

The International Board of Engineers held their first joint session at 
Ottawa on April 13, 14, 15 and 16, and at that meeting the field work for the 
season was considered and a programme arranged. Other meetings have been 
held at points along the river and all possible effort has been made to secure 
during the open season information likely to be required for the deliberations 
of the Board during the winter when field work may be no longer possible. 

The re-examination of the St. Lawrence deep waterway proposals of the 
former Board of Engineers was recommended by the International Joint Com- 
mission in its report of December 19, 1921. The Commission endorsed the 
project as practical and economically sound, but suggested that in a matter of 
such unusual magnitude, involving engineering factors more or less debatable, 
and affecting the interests of many millions of people, too much care could not 
be taken to insure the adoption of plans that would be beyond reasonable 
criticism. To that end, it recommended that the Bowden-Wooten plans be 



REPORT OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER 13 

referred back to an enlarged board of engineers in order that the whole question 
might be given the further and complete study its magnitude and importance 
demanded. 

It is this further investigation that is being undertaken by the enlarged 
Joint Engineering Board. In order to assist either Government to allocate 
the amounts chargeable to navigation and power, the engineers will report on 
the estimated cost of improving the river for navigation alone and for power 
alone. Under the terms of reference the Board is called upon to report on 
all the matters referred to it by the end of April, 1926. 

Following the departure of last year the report of the Commissioner of 
Highways is again being issued in separate form to facilitate the printing of 
the increased copies required and their circulation throughout the various prov- 
inces, all of which have taken advantage of the subsidy features of the Canada 
Highways Act of 1919. 

Your obedient servant, 

G. A. BELL, 

Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. 
September 15, 1925. 



14 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY SYSTEM 



For the Year Ended December 31. 1924 



Montreal, Que., March 31, 1925. 



To The Hon. George P. Graham, M.P., 
Minister of Railways and Canals. 



Sir, — I have the honour to submit herewith, on behalf of the Board of 
Directors, the report of the operation and affairs of the Canadian National 
Railway System for the year ended December 31, 1924. 

Mileage 



Miles owned 

by 
constituent 
companies 



Miles under 



or 
contract 



Miles under 

trackage 

rights 



Total 
mileage 



Atlantic Region , 

Central Region 

Grand Trunk Western Lines. 
Western Region 



2,564-07 

7,162-09 

841-81 

9-699,63 



224-78 
476-92 
123-87 
678-33 



Total steam-operated lines making up 
Mileage" 



"System 



20,267-60 



1,503-70 



14-98 
30-23 
26-21 
29-47 



100- 



2-803,83 

7,669-24 

991-69 

10-407,34 



21,872-19 
21,872-19 



Complete details are shown at the end of this report. 



Operating Results 



The operating results for the year are shown in the following summary, 
which compares the principal items of revenue and expenses with the corre- 
sponding items for the previous year: — 



revenue 



— 


1924 


1923 


Increase 

or 
Decrease 


Freight 


$ cts. 

171,045,297 89 

37,233,998 44 

3,595,261 61 

23,713,624 61 


$ cts. 

185,240,896 71 

39,285,318 14 

3,534,078 11 

25,066,194 65 


$ cts. 
Dec. 14,195,598 82 


Passenger 


Dec. 2,051,319 70 


Mail.. 


Inc. 52,183 50 


Miscellaneous 


Dec. 1,352,570 04 






Total 


235,588,182 55 


253,135,487 61 


Dec. 17,547,305 06 







CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 
EXPENSES 



15 



— 


192* 


1923 


Increase 

or 
Decrease 




$ cts. 

44,039,965 51 

47,972,444 24 

6,892,751 22 

110,085,033 62 

2,381,469 56 

7,633,834 05 

661,567 IS 


$ cts. 

44,778,445 45 

51,176,320 13 

5,792,928 06 

120,302,450 60 

2,304,105 65 

8,063,390 52 

712,801 88 


Dec. 

Dec. 

Inc. 

Dec. 

Inc. 

Dec. 

Dec. 


$ cts. 
738,479-94 




4,203,875-89 


Traffic 


1,099,823-16 




10,217,416-98 




77,363-91 




429,556-47 


Transportation for investment credit 


51,234-75 






Total 


218,343,931 07 


232,704,838 53 


Dec. 


14,360,907 46 








17,244,251 48 


20,430,649 08 


Dec. 


3,186,397 60 






Operating ratio 


92 68 


91 92 





Note. — The figures shown as for 1923 differ somewhat from those published last year. Hotel properties, 
which last year were included with railway operations, this year have been classed as outside operations 
and appear under Accounts 502, 534 and 535. To afford better comparison the 1923 figures have been 
accordingly re-stated though the final net income result is not affected. 

Gross Earnings 

Operating revenues decreased by $17, 547,305.06, or by 6.93 per cent. This 
decrease resulted from adverse business conditions which obtained during the 
greater part of the year throughout Canada and elsewhere. Traffic during the 
first three months of the year was in excess of that moved in the same period of 
1923, but general business suffered a reduction early in April and the depression 
continued until the end of the year. Due principally to the relatively small 
grain crop in Western Canada the movement of grain to the lakehead was in 
much less volume than usual and was considerably below the exceptionally 
heavy movement which took place in the last three months of 1923, with the 
result that the impetus to active business which a large grain movement usually 
engenders was noticeably lacking. The movement was also to some extent 
affected by the disposition shown to hold grain in the country creating an un- 
usual condition and one which business in general had not anticipated. 

In connection with the consideration of the gross earnings of the system, 
it is appropriate again to refer to the freight rate situation in Canada. As was 
pointed out in last year's report, continued reductions in freight rates will inevit- 
ably postpone the day when the national system will become self-supporting. 
The recent decision with respect to what is known as the "Crowsnest Agreement" 
has established a condition which is serious to all of the transportation interests 
of Canada. It is earnestly to be hoped that, during the ensuing year, some 
solution of the difficulty will be found which will have due regard to the 
interests of all of the parties concerned. 

Operating Expenses 
Operating expenses were reduced in the aggregate by $14,360,907.46. This 
reduction more than meets the decrease in freight earnings, but it is to be re- 
membered that, while it is possible to reduce freight train services when a reduc- 
tion in that class of traffic occurs it is impossible to pursue to a similar degree 
the same policy with passenger train services. 

Maintenance of Way and Structures 
Maintenance of way and structures expenses were reduced by $738,479.94, 
and, while this represents a reduction of but 1.65 per cent, it will be noted by 
examination of the detailed accounts on page 25 that reductions about propor- 
tional to the decrease in earnings were made in roadway maintenance, and 
t'-acklaying and surfacing, while fortunately the item of removal of snow, ice 
and sand was reduced by 35 per cent, the latter due to the less severe winter 



16 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

weather. However, it was not possible to extend the reductions to all main- 
tenance work, and, due to heavier rail and tie renewals and the fact that other 
work under special maintenance appropriations was carried on, maintenance 
of way expenses absorbed a slightly higher percentage of gross earnings and 
formed a somewhat higher proportion of the total operating expenses. 

However low the traffic density may be, there is always a point below which 
expenses chargeable to Maintenance of Way and Structures cannot be reduced 
without damage to the property and consequent heavy expenditures in sub- 
sequent years. An effort has been made to preserve a reasonable standard of 
maintenance with due regard for economy. The field has by no means been 
exhausted, and further economies will appear during the coming year; but it 
would not be in the interests of the property to reduce expenses chargeable to 
this account to the point of borrowing from the future. 

Maintenance of Equipment 

These expenses were reduced by $4,203,875.89 or by 8.06 per cent. To a 
large extent repairs to motive power and freight train cars were reduced by 
decreased usage due to lesss traffic handled. There was, however, a reduction 
in the cost of locomotive repairs proportional to the reduction in mileage made. 
The cost of freight train car repairs per 1,000 car miles was reduced from $14.01 
to $12.23. 

Notwithstanding these reductions the system's motive power was fully 
maintained and the quota of equipment necessary to handle the business offering 
was adequately maintained. 

Adequate provision was made in the accounts for all units of equipment 
retired from service and ordered scrapped. 

Attached will be found a statement of additions to and retirements from 
the system's motive power and rolling stock made during the year. 

TKANSPOKTATION EXPENSES 

The reduction made in transportation expense amounted to $10,217,416.98 
and it is particularly gratifying that 71.15 percent of the total reduction in 
operating expenses come from this source or what are termed the "out of pocket'* 
expenses of moving the business. While the decrease in total operating revenue 
was 6.93 per cent, the reduction in transportation expenses was 8.49 per cent. 
The relationship of transportation expenses to gross earnings indicates a notable 
advance in transportation efficiency since the consolidation, as the followingl 
figures show: — 

1924 1923 1922 
Percentage of gross earnings absorbed by trans- 
portation expenses 46.73 47.51 48.57 

While the reduction in percentage is not great, yet when applied to the gross 
earnings it represents a considerable sum. In fact if transportation expenses 
had absorbed in 1924 the same percentage of gross as in 1922, net earnings 
would have been reduced by 24 per cent. 

While the percentage reduction achieved in 1923 was greater than the 
reduction obtained in 1924, in 1923 the improvement in the relationship of 
transportation expenses to gross earnings was assisted by an increase of revenues 
of over 20 million dollars, whereas in 1924 the advance was made in the face of a 
decrease of 17§ million dollars. This will be recognized as a very favourable 
showing and one that could not have been effected except by well planned and 
sustained effort on the part of all concerned. 

In effecting the reduction in transportation expenses, better train loading 
played an important part. While density of traffic decreased by 10.23 per cent, 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 17 

freight train mileage was reduced by 12.51 per cent, and the average freight train 
load (including mixed trains) increased from 502 tons in 1923 to 517 tons in 1924. 
Some benefit accrued from the slightly lower average cost of fuel, but the 
greater part of the saving came from its more economical use and the saving in 
freight train mileage already mentioned. 

TRAFFIC EXPENSES 

Traffic expenses increased by $1,099,323.16, bringing the total expendi- 
ture for the year under this heading to $6,892,751.22. Notwithstanding this, 
less than 3 per cent of gross earnings was absorbed by this item which includes 
several expenses not incurred by other Railways, namely on account of coloniza- 
tion and development work. 

As intimated in last year's report a more aggressive policy in advertising and 
similar items was carried out. The Canadian National building and exhibit 
at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley were special features of this work, 
ffrom which material returns should result. 

In order to continue the aggressive policy of solicitation it was found necessary 
to strengthen our representation at various points. 

GENERAL EXPENSES 

These expenses in the aggregate were reduced to the extent of $429,556.47 
or by 5.33 per cent, and more than half of this saving was due to the fact that 
in 1923 large expenses were incurred on account of the reorganization and the 
moving and transfer of officers and employees which this involved. A substantial 
saving in the staff of the Accounting Department was made possible by the co- 
ordination of accounting and auditing work, and incident to consolidation 
there were heavy expenses for stationery and printing which were reduced in 1924. 

Income Items 

Examination of the income statement shows that the item of railway tax 
accruals increased by $768,675.23 of which more than half is due to the demands 
of the province of Manitoba. Other large items of increase are due to the 
accrual of taxes relating to years prior to 1924, but set-up in this year's accounts. 

The equipment and joint facility rental accounts as reported in the 1923 
report have been restated to afford a better comparison with revised methods 
of treating inter-sytems transactions, though such restatement does not affect 
the net result. 

The improvement in miscellaneous income (Account No. 519) is due to the 
fact that there is not in the 1924 accounts any amount corresponding to the charge 
taken up in 1923 accounts reflecting the settlement with the United States 
Government for operation of our lines in the United States during the guaranty 
period in 1920. Exchange on sterling and United States funds was also much 
more favourable in 1924. 

HIRE OF FREIGHT CARS 

While not classed as an operating expense this income item is one which is 
directly under control of operating officers and a feature of transportation 
performance of the greatest importance. It is, therefore, very pleasing to be 
able to record a reduction in the amount paid out for the use of other lines' 
equipment of $2,192,991.98. 

Balance Sheet 

Certain adjustments have been made in the balance sheet of an accounting 
nature, such as transfer of hotel properties from investment in road and equip- 
ment to miscellaneous physical property as referred to elsewhere. 

6059—2 



18 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Less money was tied up in material and supplies at the end of the year than 
at the end of 1923, and all collection items were on a better basis showing reduc- 
tions from the previous year. Current and deferred assets combined, as com- 
pared with the sum of current and deferred liabilities, show an improved position 
in the railway's working capital. 

As indicated in last year's report, active consideration has been given to 
the policy to be followed with respect to the capitalization of the system and 
the extent to which, if at all, advances made and capital held by the Govern- 
ment should be written down to a figure commensurate with the earning prospects 
of the property. The problem is proving both difficult and complicated, but 
it continues to engage the attention of the board and the financial department 
of the company. It is hoped that before much time has elapsed it will be possible 
to present to the proper authorities a consistent scheme for consideration. 

Finance 

Of the $56,527,000 voted by Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 
31, 1925, $10,000,000 was received in cash by the company and two issues of 
guaranteed securities were made as follows: — 

$20,000,000 Four Per Cent Three-Year Gold Notes, dated 
Julv 1, 1924; and $26,000,000 Four and one-half Per Cent 
Thirty- Year Gold Bonds, dated September 15, 1924. 

As of July 1, 1924, an issue was made of $9,375,000 Four and one-half Per 
Cent Equipment Trust Certificates, Series "H", secured by $12,500,000 worth 
of new equipment. 

The funded debt retirements during the year were : — 

Five and one-half Per Cent Five- Year Canadian Northern Railway Secured 

Notes $ 6,000,000 00 

Six Per Cent Five- Year Canadian Northern Collateral Trust Gold Notes. 4,349,000 00 

Equipment Trust Certificates of various issues 5,063,400 00 

Payments under various sinking funds and sundry retirements 99, 573 30 

Total : $15, 511 , 973 30 

Traffic Movement 

The volume of revenue freight decreased by 8.70 per cent from 18,546,404,- 
436 ton miles to 16,932,406,010 ton miles. 

Revenue freight tonnage decreased by 8.29 per cent, namely 4,749,724 
tons, represented partly by a decrease of two and one-half million tons of bitum- 
inous coal and one-half million tons of anthracite coal. 

Additional decreases in tonnages were as follows: Wheat, 691,206 tons; 
sawn lumber, timber, etc., 561,609 tons; iron ores, 287,733 tons; dimension 
stone, 260,182 tons. 

In the manufactures class the tonnage of iron and steel commodities showed 
heavy decreases, totalling 770,440 tons; automobiles and auto trucks, 115,538 
tons;" unclassified manufactures and miscellaneous merchandise, 684,291 tons. 

15,248 carloads of grain were moved to Vancouver for export as compared 
with 6,981 carloads in 1923. 

The movement of live stock to Winnipeg and to the east showed a good 
development and the cattle trade in the western provinces was reported at the 
end of the year as in promising condition. 

Partially compensating increases were recorded in roadmaking material 
of 834,112 tons, and cement of 95,778 tons. 

The average haul per ton of revenue freight declined from 323.96 miles to 
322.53. The rate per ton per mile increased slightly, viz., from .999c. to 1.01c. 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 19 

Passenger business on the whole was very disappointing. The number of 
passengers carried declined from 23,683,781 to 22,707,880, or by 4.12 per cent. 
The average journey declined slightly from 61.09 miles to 60.43 miles, and the 
revenue per passenger per mile declined from 2.715c. to 2.713c. 

During the year 12 more self-propelled cars were put into service and at the 
end of the year there were in service; 13 storage battery cars, 8 gasoline motor 
cars, and 3 steam unit cars. The mileage performed by these cars in the last 
three years shows the development going on in the use of this form of trans- 
portation : — 

Percentage 
of 
Increase 
1924 1924 
Over Over 
1924 1923 1922 1923 1922 



Car mileage run 508.000 252.000 145.000 101.6 250.3 

EXPRESS 

Express earnings show a decrease of 2.4 per cent from those for the year 
1923. This is accounted for mainly by the general business depression and 
partly by the close season on halibut shipments from Prince Rupert established 
by treaty with the United States and effective for about six weeks prior to 
the end of the year; also partly by expedited freight service available between 
various points. 

Rates 
Changes affecting freight rates were made effective as follows: — 

April 14, 1924. — Class rates between Ontario points and the Maritime 
Provinces where arbitraries are added to Montreal rates were adjusted involving 
reductions ranging from 8c. to 17c. per 100 pounds on first class, and from lc. 
to 7.5c. on tenth class traffic. This was a voluntary reduction on the part of 
the railway. 

May 27, 1924. — Rates on grain ex lake milled in transit at lake ports, or en 
route to port of export were reduced by amounts ranging from Jc. to 2c. per 
100 pounds dependent upon the port. 

The suspension under Parliamentary authority of the Crows-nest Pass 
rates terminated on July 6, 1924. On the following day these rates again became 
effective, with consequent reductions in rates on certam specified commodities 
from and to points on certain Canadian Pacific lines. It was therefore necessary 
for the Canadian National to apply on its lines similar rate between competitive 
points. The Crows-nest Pass rates were by order of the Board of Railway 
Commissioners suspended as of October 27, 1924, but by order of the Governor 
General in Council were reinstated as of January 9, 1925. As is well known 
the matter has not yet been finally disposed of, and it will likely engage the 
attention of Parliament and the Board of Railway Commissioners in the near 
future. 

Betterments 

During the first two years of the consolidation it was necessary to make 
substantial expenditures in various ways. Reference to this was made in last 
year's report. Further general expenditures had to be made during the past 
year to bring the standard of the properties nearer to what is desired. 

Now that the position above referred to has been reached, the intention 
of the directors will be to avoid, or postpone for so long as may be advisable, 
any capital expenditures which are not essentiallv needed. 

6059— 2£ 



20 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Certain additional capital expenditures were authorized by the Dominion 
Parliament in 1924, and will have to be made during the present year. These 
include branch line construction, also that part of the Toronto viaduct cost 
chargeable to the National Railways. 

Land Sales 

During the year 1924, 55,450 acres of land were sold at an average price of 
$14.29 per acre, amounting to $792,152, as compared with 61,994 acres sold in 
1923 at an average price of $15.66 per acre, amounting to $970,952. 

Cancellations of purchase contracts during the year represented 39,295 
acres, as compared with 59,190 acres in 1923. 

In explanation of the reduced average selling price it may be pointed out 
that the price received by western farmers for the 1923 crop was at a low rate 
per bushel and that many farmers abandoned their land, with the result that 
mortgage and trust companies and others had a large number of farms on their 
hands which they were willing to sell at low prices. The demand for land has 
not been great and the price paid for lands was correspondingly, reduced. 

Wages and Labour 

Friendly relations were maintained with our employees during the past year. 
As a result of the co-ordination of the various lines it was necessary to make 
partial adjustments in rates for sdme classes, but no general increase in rates 
was made on our Canadian Lines to any group of employees. 

The supply of common labour during the year remained plentiful; in regard 
to which there was no general change in rates or conditions, although rates were 
somewhat lower in southwestern Ontario than during 1923. 

After conference with our Shop Crafts employees, it was decided to make 
a trial of the so-called ''Baltimore and Ohio" co-operative plan in our shops, 
the main objects being stabilization of employment — creating a feeling of mutual 
trust and confidence — resulting in more harmonious relations between employer 
and employees, a higher quality of production, improved service to the public, 
elimination of waste energy and conservation of material and progressive improve- 
ment in shop conditions. This plan is now being tried out in our Moncton shops, 
and, if successful, its extension to other plants will be proceeded with as quickly 
as the necessary organization can be arranged. 

All matters of employees' grievances were disposed of either directly with 
officers of the railway or through the Canadian Railway Board of Adjustment 
No. 1, Montreal, except in the case of our commercial telegraphers, who requested 
a Board of conciliation. 

Purchases and Stores 

As a result of decreases in the purchases of fuel and equipment more particu- 
larly the aggregate expenditures by the Purchasing Department in 1924 were 
less than in 1923. 

All the company's material is now in the custody of the Purchasing and 
Stores Departments^ Additional storehouses have been erected with modern 
facilities for the proper housing and handling of materials. It is expected by 
the continued improvement of storekeeping methods, and constant supervision, 
that further substantial reductions in stores stocks will be obtained. During 
the year a new reclamation dock and plant was erected^ at Transcona, Man., 
and with the concentration at that point for reclamation of used materials 
from Western Lines, considerable savings are expected. 

Telegraphs 

Under the agreement of 1915 with the Western Union Telegraph Company, 
the Canadian National Telegraphs had the right to purchase the Western Union 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 21 

Lines and equipment in British Columbia. This right was exercised in Septem- 
ber, 1924. The returns from operation of these lines and equipment fully 
justified the purchase. 

The Canadian National Telegraphs now operate commercial telegraph 
lines throughout Canada west of Moncton, N.B., and have control of the main- 
tenance of all telegraph and telephone lines on the Canadian National Railways 
used for railway purposes. 

Other detailed information in connection with this department will be 
found elsewhere in the report. 

Insurance 

The Self-Insurance Fund after payment of or provision for losses was in- 
creased during the year by $1,437,475. The total of the fund at the end of the 
year was $4,074,153. This amount does not include anything in respect of 
marine insurance which will be referred to in the report of the Canadian Govern- 
ment Merchant Marine. 

The total fire losses were $420,250, as compared with $679,050 during 1923. 
These figures speak for themselves. 

During the year substantial progress was made in the adoption of practices 
and the use of appliances intended to eliminate fire risks and to ensure prompt 
and efficient action when fires occur. One of the chief features of the work of 
the Insurance Department is education, having in view the future as well as the 
present. 

Colonization and Development 

During the past year efforts were made to obtain land settlers not only 
from the British Isles but also from other European countries, particularly Norway, 
Sweden, Denmark and Holland. Additional branch agencies have been opened 
at Oslo, Copenhagen and Rotterdam. Educational courses in agriculture were 
inaugurated, with the object of enabling intending settlers to become familiar 
with agricultural methods in Canada before emigrating. 

In the matter of advertising and publicity, a great deal of printed matter 
has been distributed in the British Isles, Europe and the United States. Eight 
moving picture films illustrating agricultural, social and educational conditions 
in Canada have been prepared for exhibition. Much publicity was received 
as a result of the transcontinental inspection trip of the Scottish editors who 
were brought out to this country last summer for the purpose of making a study 
of general conditions here and of the methods used in taking care of settlers 
after arrival. 

During the year 13,022 immigrants, mostly British, Scandinavian and 
Czecho-Slovakian passed through Winnipeg reaching that point on Canadian 
National trains, as compared with 7,574 in 1923. 

From time to time, and particularly during the past two years, reference 
has been made on various occasions to the need for immigration. The whole 
future of Canada and of the railway systems in Canada depends upon increased 
population and upon the increased traffic which would result therefrom. As 
compared with what might be done in order to bring about the desired result, 
the efforts made in the past might be termed somewhat spasmodic and unorgan- 
ized. If there is to be real success the matter will have to be handled otherwise 
in the future. The Dominion, as a whole, the provinces individually, the railways 
and all other business organizations are, each of them, interested. The problem 
is of sufficient magnitude and importance to justify in its solution the employ- 
ment of the most capable and energetic minds in the Dominion. The investment 
of money on a larger scale than in the past will also be required. The matter 
might be entrusted to a permanent commission constituted somewhat on the 
lines of the Board of Railway Commissioners, except that more commissioners 



22 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

would doubtless have to be appointed; and this Immigration Commission 
would have to be authorized to make expenditures under a general programme 
approved by Parliament. 

Pensions 
i 
A General Pension Scheme applicable to all officers and employees of the 
Canadian National System and its affiliated corporations has been under further 
consideration during the year. In view of uncertainty as to the costs involved 
an actuarial report is being obtained. 

Radio Department 

The popularity of this branch of the service is evidenced by the many 
thousands of appreciative letters and messages received from the public during 
the past year. 

Broadcasting stations are owned at Moncton and Ottawa and stations are 
rented at Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and 
Calgary. During the year some of the observation cars on our important 
passenger trains operated between Montreal and Vancouver, Montreal and 
Quebec, and Toronto and Winnipeg were equipped with radio. Radio sets 
have also been installed in all of the company's hotels. 

Organization 

The establishment of System and Regional Committees of the chief depart- 
ments of the railway has proved distinctly beneficial. Papers on various subjects 
are read and discussed, with the result that improvements of all kinds are 
effected more satisfactorily and with greater despatch than would otherwise be 
possible. The establishment and maintenance of personal contact between 
the officers and employees of a transcontinental system is an essential factor 
in good management. The educational and practical results produced by such 
conferences are far-reaching. 

Notwithstanding the adverse business conditions already referred to, your 
directors feel that the work of the company's officers and employees has been of a 
very satisfactory character during the year. The aim of the management is to treat 
employees in a fair and reasonable way in the expectation that such treatment 
will be appreciated and reciprocated. The feeling between the company and its 
employees and between the employees themselves has been markedly good and 
your directors desire to take this opportunity of recording their appreciation 
of the good work performed by the employees, not only by those who come in 
contact with the public but also by those whose conscientious work is frequently 
known only to themselves and their immediate associates. 

Obituary Notices 

During the year the deaths occurred of the following: — 

Sir Alfred W. Smithers, who was for many years a director and afterwards 
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. 

Mr. E. J. Chamberlin, who was an official of the Grand Trunk Company 
for many years and was president from 1912 to 1917. 

The services rendered by these gentlemen in their respective capacities 
are so well known that no special reference is necessary. 

Mr. J. H. Sinclair, K.C., who was a director of the National System from 
1922 to the time of his death in June, 1924. Mr. Sinclair's long and varied 
experience made him a useful member of the board; and the interest he took 
in the Canadian National affairs and his kindly nature made his loss all the more 
felt by his fellow directors. 

H. W. THORNTON, 

Chairman and President. 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 23 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY SYSTEM 

(excluding the central vermont railway) 
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1924 

ASSETS 
Investments — 

701 Investment in road and equipment $ 1 , 837, 072, 740 64 

702 Improvements on leased railway property 5,860,651 08 

703 Sinking funds 8,275,615 56 

704 Deposits in lieu of mortgaged property sold 6, 060, 509 85 

705 Miscellaneous physical property 54, 545, 168 77 

706 Investments in affiliated companies: 

"A" Stocks $ 2,064,960 16 

"B" Bonds 11,790,460 45 

"C" Notes 8,041,905 52 

"D" Advances 8,973,750 47 

30,871,076 60 



707 Other investments 6,744,424 18 

$ 1,949,430,186 

Current Assets — 

708 Cash $ 30,007,677 60 

711 Special deposits 3,547,392 06 

712 Loans and bills receivable 56, 471 08 

713 Traffic and car service balances receivable 2,006, 139 67 

714 Net balance receivable from agents and conductors 4,345,785 50 

715 Miscellaneous accounts receivable 8,345,739 13 

716 Material and supplies 50,459,444 66 

717 Interest and dividends receivable 493,214 34 

718 Rents receivable 213,068 72 

719 Other current assets 51,248 64 



720 Working fund advances $ 606, 626 25 

721 Insurance and other funds 6,071,235 07 

722 Other deferred assets 7,565,377 75 



Unadjusted Debits — 

723 Rents and insurance premiums paid in advance $ 52,465 89 

724 Discount on capital stock 193, 500 00 

725 Discount on funded debt 5,292,713 00 

727 Other unadjusted debits 5,517,061 96 



,526,181 40 



14,243,239 07 



11,055,740 85 



Total $ 2, 074, 255, 348 00 



Note. — The title of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway and the Canadian Northern Quebec 
Railway Companies to lands carried "Min iscellaneous Physical Property"at $7,318,140 has been ques- 
tioned by the Ontario and Quebec Provincial Governments. 

Conversions from sterling have been made on the basis of par of exchange. 

LIABILITIES 
Stock— 

751 Capital stock $ 270,229,838 70 

752 Stock liability for conversion . 10, 600 00 

$ 270,240,438 70 

Governmental Grants — 

754 Grants in aid of construction 16,203,083 65 

Long Term Debt— 

755 Funded debt unmatured, held by public $ 913,913,082 80 

Dominion of Canada Account — 

Funded debt unmatured $33,048,000 00 

Receiver's certificates and interest thereon.... 59, 222, 385 86 
Loans from Dominion of Canada and interest 

thereon 595,285,564 06 

Appropriations account Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways 451,712,484 98 1, 142,268,434 90 

2,056,181,517 70 



24 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Current Liabilities — 

758 Loans and bills payable $ 8,500 00 

759 Traffic and oar service balances payable 3, 541, 357 95 

760 Audited accounts and wages payable 14,351,460 35 

761 Miscellaneous accounts payable 2, 035, 956 64 

782 Interest matured unpaid 13, 000, 760 53 

764 Funded debt matured unpaid 815, 549 82 

766 Unmatured interest accrued 7,875,804 58 

767 Unmatured rents accrued 620, 531 42 

768 Other current liabilities 791 , 672 14 



Deferred Liabilities — 

769 Liability for provident funds $ 510,016 12 

770 Other deferred liabilities 5,815,567 81 



43,049,593 43 



6,325,583 93 



Unadjusted Credits — 

771 Tax liability $ 2, 813, 935 89 

773 Insurance and casualty reserves 5,848, 552 48 

774 Operating reserves 232, 299 33 

775 Accrued depreciation— road 2, 497, 262 03 

776 Accrued depreciation— equipment 4, 763, 684 33 

777 Accrued depreciation — miscellaneous physical property 619,357 28 

778 Other unadjusted credits 4,681,706 67 



21,456,798 01 



Corporate Surplus — 

779 Additions to property through income and surplus $ 1,661,307 29 

780 Funded debt retired through income and surplus 910, 000 00 

781 Sinking fund reserves 488,842 09 

783 Appropriated surplus 1,798,954 14 

784 Profit and loss— balance Deficit 844, 060, 770 94 889, 201 , 667 4$ 



Total $ 2, 074, 255 , 348 00 



J. M. ROSEVEAR, 
General Comptroller. 



We have examined the books and records of the Companies comprising the Canadian National Railway 
System for the twelve months ended the 31st December, 1924. The investments in Road and Equipment 
appearing in the books of the Companies as at the 1st January, 1923, were accepted by us. 

We certify that, in our opinion, the above Consolidated Balance Sheet is properly drawn up so as to 
exhibit a true and correct view of the affairs of the System, excluding the Central Vermont Railway Com- 
pany, as at the 31st December, 1924, and we further certify that, in our opinion, the attached Income 
and Profit and Loss Accounts for the year ended the 31st December, 1924, are correctly stated. 

Geoege A. Touche & Co. 
Chartered Accountants, 
March 30, 1925. Auditors. 

PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, 1924 
Debits— 

611 Debit balance at January 1, 1924 $ 289,586,223 99 

611 Credit balance at January 1, 1924, of subsidiary companies, now brought into 

the consolidated accounts 792,858 97 

612 Debit balance transferred from income 54,860, 419 22 

613 Surplus applied to sinking and other reserve funds 47, 744 99 

615 Surplus appropriated for investment in physical property 1,440, 088 76 

618 Miscellaneous appropriations of surplus 904 82 

619 Loss on retired road and equipment 581, 665 92 

620 Delayed income debits and credits, net 1, 191, 299 95 

621 Miscellaneous debits and credits, net 527,512 39 

622 Adjustment of land surplus account 460, 159 32 

$ 345,023,482 77 

Credits — 

603 Profit on road and equipment sold $ 768,783 70 

605 Unrefundable overcharges 6, 711 44 

606 Donations 187,216 69 

Debit balance forward to balance sheet 344, 060, 770 94 



$ 345,023,482 77 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 
INCOME STATEMENT 



25 



Year ending 


Year ending 


December 31, 


December 31, 


1924 


1923 


% cts. 


$ cts. 


235.588.1S2 55 


253,135,487 61 


218,343,931 07 


232,704,838 53 


17,244,251 48 


20,430,649 08 


4,588,593 56 


3,819,918 33 


38,198 09 


40,540 62 


12,617,459,83 


16,570,190 13 


2,015,458 20 


2,092,819 50 


2,337,622 84 


2,337,032 04 


322,164,64 


244,212 54 


60,278 17 


52,738 78 


12,235,017 02 


16,273,238 81 


318,575 13 


586,129 56 


145,541 10 


127,843 06 


919 79 


1,002 51 


487,619 96 


209,283 88 


994,988 58 


895,448 03 


85,698 56 


68,601 90 


1,158,333 52 


837,193 97 


165,128 45 


493,176 33 


1,044,876 27 


853,753 65 


454,613 00 


515,436 25 


572,872 50 


523,094 09 


1,538,573 10 


1,068,882 66 


519,739 15 


371,226 52 


1,650,392 79 


852,554 84 


9,137,871 90 


6,208,517 57 


21,372,888 92 


22,481,756 38 


1,694,487 26 


3,887,479 24 


54,016 00 


163,038 10 


145,526 74 


147,861 99 


8,944 29 


11,271 45 


5,492 53 


12,943 84 


933,503 27 


928,210 56 


1,452,709 02 


1,387,905 80 


75,609 51 


109,868 13 


124,477 33 


482,580 16 


802,470 03 


795,876 81 


38,361,704 14 


35,041,380 28 


31,271,043 00 


30,157,943 67 


377,115 47 


239,536 07 


317,671 51 


119,172 56 


608,538 04 


, 674,860 11 





19,502 55 


76,233,308 14 


74,179,431 32 


$ 64,860,419 22 


$ 51,697,674 94 



501 Railway operating revenues 

531 Railway operating expenses 

Net revenue from railway operations 

532 Railway tax accruals 

533 Uncollectible railway revenues 

Railway operating income 

502 Revenues from miscellaneous operations 

534 Expenses of miscellaneous operations 

Net revenue from miscellaneous operations. . . 

535 Taxes on miscellaneous operations 

Total operating income 

503 Hire of freight cars — Credit balance 

504 Rent from locomotives 

505 Rent from passenger train cars 

506 Rent from floating equipment 

507 Rent from work equipment 

508 Joint facility rent income 

509 Income from lease of road 

510 Miscellaneous rent income 

.511 Miscellaneous non-operating physical property 

512 Separately operated properties — Profit 

513 Dividend income 

514 Income from funded securities 

515 Income from unfunded securities and accounts 

516 Income from sinking and other reserve funds. 

517 Release of premiums on funded debt 

518 Contributions from other companies 

519 Miscellaneous income 

Total non-operating income 

Gross income 

536 Hire of freight cars — Debit balance 

537 Rent for locomotives 

538 Rent for passenger train cars 

539 Rent for floating equipment 

540 Rent for work equipment 

541 Joint facility rents 

542 Rent for leased roads 

543 Miscellaneous rents 

544 Miscellaneous tax accruals 

545 Separately operated properties — Loss 

546 Interest on funded debit 

546Alnterest on Dominion Government advances. 

547 Interest on unfunded debt 

548 Amortization of discount on funded debt 

551 Miscellaneous income charges 

Miscellaneous appropriation of income 

Total deductions from gross income 

Net income deficit 



26 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
RAILWAY OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1924 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1923 



cts. 



cts. 



Railway Operating Revenues — 

101 Freight 

102 Passenger 

103 Excess baggage 

104 Sleeping car 

105 Parlor and chair car 

106 Mail 

107 Express 

108 Other passenger train 

109 Milk 

110 Switching 

111 Special service train 

112 Other freight train 

113 Water transfers — Freight 

114 Water transfers — Passenger 

115 Water transfers — Vehicles and live stock 

116 Water transfers — Other 

127 Special service 

131 Dining and Buffet 

132 Hotel and restaurant 

133 Station, train and boat privileges 

134 Parcel room 

135 Storage— Freight 

136 Storage — Baggage 

137 Demurrage 

138 Telegraph and telephone 

139 Grain elevators 

140 Stock yards 

141 Power 

142 Rents of buildings and other property. . . 

143 Miscellaneous 

151 Joint facility— Credit 

152 Joint facility — Debit 

Total operating revenues 

Railway operating expenses — 

♦Maintenance of way and structures 

*Maintenance of equipment 

♦Traffic 

Transportation 

♦Miscellaneous operations 

♦General 

Transportation for investment — Credit. 

Total operating expenses 



171,045,297 89 


85,240,896 71 


37,233,998 44 


39,285,318 14 


255,433 14 


292,513 29 


1,793,096 14 


1,652,408 60 


305,162 69 


291,597 16 


3,595,261 61 


3,543,078 11 


13,316,628 94 


13,654,710 00 


143,494 01 


133,219 82 


455,759 51 


469,224 03 


2,562,474 71 


2,735,572 53 


72,888 87 


77,121 70 


— ■ 


6,985 65 


1,251 29 


7,115 56 


7,384 70 


9,705 10 


3,602 00 


7,052 50 


1,455 50 


1,521 50 


— 


75 00 


1,397,477 27 


1,416,799 51 


137,547 40 


136,875 40 


161,549 99 


162,349 13 


111,407 91 


115,191 24 


170,813 40 


181,936 94 


60,737 76 


57,787 76 


647,335 09 


974,805 86 


2,170 09 


2,473 29 


438,413 65 


626,839 05 


5,213 78 


9,890 95 


— 


91 28 


250,876 61 


504,668 59 


1,475,582 85 


1,555,528 22 


45,756 65 


25,205 82 


109,889 84 


42,888 17 


235,588,182 55 


253,135,487 61 


44,039,965 51 


44,778,445 45 


47,972,444 24 


52,176,320 13 


6,892,751 22 


5,792,928 06 


110,085,033 62 


120,302,450 60 


2,381,469 56 


2,304,105 65 


7,633,834 05 


8,063,390 52 


661,567 IS 


712,801 88 


218,343,931 07 


232,704,838 53 



Details of these items follow. 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 
RAILWAY OPERATING EXPENSES 



27 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1924 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1923 



cts, 



cts. 



Maintenance of W ay and Structures — 

201 Superintendence 

202 Roadway maintenance 

206 Tunnels and subways 

207 Tunnels and subways depreciation 

208 Bridges., trestles and culverts 

209 Bridges, trestles and culverts depreciation 

210 Elevated structures 

212 Ties 

214 Rails 

216 Other track material 

218 Ballast 

220 Track laying and surfacing 

221 Right of way fences 

223 Snow and sand fences and snow sheds 

225 Crossings and signs 

227 Station and office buildings 

228 Station and office buildings depreciation 

229 Roadway buildings 

231 Water stations 

233 Fuel stations 

234 Fuel stations depreciation 

235 Shops arid enginehouses 

237 Grain elevators 

239 Storage warehouses 

241 Wharves and docks 

243 Coal and ore wharves 

245 Gas producing plants 

247 Telegraph and telephone lines 

249 Signals and interlockers 

253 Power plant buildings 

255 Power sub station buildings 

257 Power transmission systems 

259 Power distribution systems 

261 Power line poles and fixtures 

263 Underground conduits 

265 Miscellaneous structures 

267 Paving 

269 Roadway machines 

271 Small tools and supplies 

272 Removing snow, ice and sand 

273 Assessments for public improvements 

274 Injuries to persons 

275 Insurance 

276 Stationery and printing 

277 Other expenses 

278 Maintaining joint tracks, yards and other facilities, Dr 

279 Maintaining joint tracks, yards and other facilities, Cr. 

Total maintenance of way and structures 



3,023,317 09 


2,976,361 50 


3,965,740 73 


4,294,842 16 


21,881 49 


12,175 86 


12,155 14 


12,155 14 


3,047,228 74 


2,979,295 61 


54,559 50 


47,752 91 


6,814,905 25 


6,685,760 27 


3,676,122 51 


2,717,389 13 


1,961,999 13 


1,870,279 57 


426,280 21 


356,106 82 


11,443,053 17 


12,223,942 10 


414, 150 94 


419,792 84 


34,381 51 


49,867 87 


559,161 46 


585,700 64 


1,676,712 69 


1,734,848 37 


2,368 80 


2,368 80 


150,499 87 


146,304 68 


544,412 26 


628,694 69 


211,437 49 


291,902 28 


477 34 


477 41 


1,574,290 55 


1,451,928 42 


107,869 62 


65,412 70 





116 13 


285,923 56 


284,976 40 


50,560 89 


50,777 27 


1,619 20 


14,494 48 


503,824 23 


505,169 26 


421,541 32 


367,785 38 


3,401 51 


1,664 51 


544 77 





14,651 09 


27,621 95 


42,228 63 


10,042 12 


206 75 


60 00 





647 65 


3,250 95 


2,579 81 


1,143 96 


5,381 46 


251,270 78 


240,200 27 


601,644 29 


580,425 05 


1,773,208 12 


2,731,069 46 


20,838 79 


1,063 25 


416,075 30 


316,134 85 


658,736 65 


523,374 91 


99,193 40 


83,566 47 


27,729 34 


15,092 65 


1,000,030 28 


1,020,403 80 


1,860,663 79 


1,557,661 45 


44,039,965 51 


44,778,445 45 



28 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
RAILWAY OPERATING EXPENSES— Continued 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1924 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1923 



Maintcna7ice of Equipment — 

301 Superintendence 

302 Shop machinery and tools 

304 Power plant machinery 

306 Power sub-station apparatus 

305 Steam locomotives — Repairs 

309 Steam locomotives — Depreciation 

310 Steam locomotives — Retirements 

311 Other locomotives — Repairs 

312 Other locomotives — Depreciation 

313 Other locomotives — Retirements 

314 Freight train cars — Repairs 

315 Freight train cars — Depreciation 

316 Freight train cars — Retirements 

317 Passenger train cars — Repairs 

318 Passenger train cars — Depreciation 

319 Passenger train cars — Retirements 

320 Motor equipment of cars — Repairs 

323 Floating equipment — Repairs 

324 Floating equipment — Depreciation 

325 Floating equipment — Retirements 

326 Work equipment — Repairs 

327 Work equipment — Depreciation 

328 Work equipment — Retirements 

329 Miscellaneous equipment — Repairs 

330 Miscellaneous equipment — Depreciation 

331 Miscellaneous equipment — Retirements 

332 Injuries to persons 

333 Insurance 

334 Stationery and printing 

335 Other expenses 

336 Maintaining joint equipment at terminals, Dr 

337 Maintaining joint equipment at terminals, Cr. 

Total 

Traffic Expenses — 

351 Superintendence 

352 Outside Agencies 

353 Advertising 

354 Traffic associations 

355 Fast freight lines 

356 Industrial and immigration bureaus 

357 Insurance 

358 Stationery and printing 

359 Other expenses 

Total 



cts. 



cts. 



1,677,547 44 


1,683,896 42 


1,319,069 20 


1,437,811 52 


100,271 06 


102,572 99 


696 94 


178 87 


17,319,361 14 


18,883,484 81 


421,890 26 


369,234 95 


895,149 07 


267,610 49 


40,845 91 


38,227 76 


3,834 78 


3,834 72 


15,013,169 16 


18,656,307 70 


525,017 68 


278,069 58 


1,263,273 77 


569,608 79 


6,336,565 06 


6,431,395 86 


52,271 80 


20,697 14 


55,662 56 


74,332 67 


20,692 97 


39,331 95 


139,555 51 


168,955 35 


25,926 12 


25,030 32 


1,832,308 60 


2,155,625 78 


31,163 45 


11,265 56 


121,662 08 


87,942 06 


13,145 39 


10,668 30 


345,036 82 


266,563 90 


502,042 78 


528,698 35 


92,204 71 


95,993 00 


18,465 47 


23,074 07 


189,096 76 


157,882 01 


888,482 25 


211,974 79 


47,972,444 24 


52,176,320 13 


1,875,602 24 


1,717,126 77 


2,465,739 71 


2,240,441 76 


1,280,911 53 


1,065,123 11 


95,942 37 


76,523 95 


770,454 90 


309,188 00 


808 82 


3,423 43 


358,127 06 


353,709 42 


45,164 59 


27,391 62 


6,892,751 22 


5,792,928 06 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 
RAILWAY OPERATING EXPENSES— Continued 



29 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1924 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1923 



Transportation Rail Line — 

371 Superintendence 

372 Despatching trains 

373 Station employees 

374 Weighing inspection, and demurrage bureaus 

375 Coal and ore wharves 

376 Station supplies and expenses 

377 Yardmasters and yard clerks 

378 Yard conductors and brakemen 

379 Yard, switch and signal tenders 

380 Yard enginemen 

381 Yard motormen 

382 Fuel for yard locomotives 

383 Yard switching power produced 

384 Yard switching power purchased 

385 Water for yard locomotives 

386 Lubricants for yard locomotives 

387 Other supplies for yard locomotives , 

388 Enginehouse expenses — Yard 

389 Yard supplies and expenses 

390 Operating joint yards and terminals, Dr 

391 Operating joint yards and terminals, Cr 

392 Train Enginemen 

393 Train motormen 

394 Fuel for train locomotives 

395 Train power produced 

396 Train power purchased 

397 Water for train locomotives 

398 Lubricants for train locomotives 

399 Other supplies for train locomotives 

400 Enginehouse Expenses — Train 

401 Trainmen 

402 Train supplies and expenses 

403 Operating sleeping cars 

404 Signal and interlocker operation 

405 Crossing protection 

406 Drawbridge operation 

407 Telegraph and telephone operation 

408 Operating floating equipment 

409 Express service 

410 Stationery and printing 

411 Other expenses 

412 Operating joint tracks and facilities, Dr 

413 Operating joint tracks and facilities, Cr 

414 Insurance 

415 Clearing wrecks 

416 Damage to property 

417 Damage to stock on right-of-way 

418 Loss and damage— Freight 

419 Loss and damage — Baggage 

420 Injuries to persons 

Total 



1, 

2, 

2, 

10, 

22, 



cts. 



610,188 71 
399,128 67 
043,902 37 

71,170 77 
141,965 27 
497,846 19 
436,287 56 
842,181 65 
724,539 50 
428,229 34 

26,087 70 
198,621 15 

18,445 19 

44,403 91 
190,153 43 

51,067 07 

51,690 20 
423,442 71 
119,530 96 
106,246 64 
575,405 45 
329,289 31 

56,884 90 
859,840 71 

15,873 91 

45,535 83 
166,571 03 
315,948 30 
227,014 20 
997,535 95 
349,961 29 
682,755 66 
972,340 72 
562,711 49 
734,310 92 
111,490 65 
124,772 34 
913,072 68 
364,533 48 
855,036 75 
388,287 06 
406,552 71 
613,759 98 
487,786 99 
499,515 82 
120,764 58 

69,242 52 

186,544 69 

6,789 65 

989,005 92 



3,303 

1,383 

16,639 

68 

160 

1,489 

2,424 

5,386 

677 

3,762 

25 

5,914 

17 

60 

130 

58 

61 

1,479 

116 

2,496 

2,704 

11,445 

26 

27,792 

13 

34 

1,307 

362 

263 

4,388 

12,569 

4,669 

924 

570 

760 

118 

289 

967 

6,404 

860 

287 

403 

546 

325 

692 

189 

86 

1,343 

22 

777 



cts. 



,457 77 
,622 04 
,356 08 
,076 53 
,623 13 
,739 10 
,801 75 
,517 69 
,574 01 
,118 04 
,786 41 
,466 53 
,683 64 
,540 92 
,749 58 
,659 48 
,151 00 
,215 82 
,966 07 
,058 82 
,557 14 
,894 17 
,813 64 
,571 47 
,516 88 
,216 34 
,399 71 
, 100 77 
, 144 75 
,710 08 
,255 80 
,893 56 
,121 03 
,579 27 
,252 32 
,526 18 
,802 80 
,025 50 
,470 74 
,435 01 
,702 43 
,230 64 
,856 32 
, 130 40 
,695 03 
,610 10 
,359 72 
,027 56 
,536 31 
,677 44 



110,085,033 62 



120,302,450 60 



30 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
RAILWAY OPERATING EXPENSES— Concluded 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1924 



Year ending 

December 31, 

1923 



Miscellaneous Operations — 

441 Dining and buffet service 

442 Hotels and restaurants 

443 Grain elevators 

444 Stockyards 

446 Other miscellaneous operations 

Total miscellaneous operations 

General Expenses — 

451 Salaries and expenses of general officers 

452 Salaries and expenses of clerks and attendants 

453 General office supplies and expenses 

454 Law expenses 

455 Insurance 

456 Relief department expenses 

457 Pensions 

458 Stationery and printing 

459 Valuation expenses 

460 Other expenses 

461 General joint facilities, Dr 

462 General joint facilities, Cr 

Total general expenses 



$ cts. 

2,029,174 07 
121,356 28 
223,046 70 

7,892 51 



2,381,469 56 



990,957 88 

4,281,896 34 

564,792 25 

479,893 78 

2,793 49 

27,500 00 

682,023 96 

236,811 96 

33,040 43 

337,697 64 

7,167 44 

10,741 12 



7,633,834 05 



$ cts. 

1,876,124 48 

122,698 72 

303,994 95 

1,196 76 

90 74 



2,304,105 65 



947,575 99 

4,383,847 42 

796,237 59 

Q16.435 36 

6,849 45 

29.060 00 
627,399 23 
330,295 30 

44,921 40 

286,119 64 

8,710 20 

14.061 06 



5,063,390 52 



EXPENDITURES, LESS RETIREMENTS, DURING THE YEAR 1924, 
INVESTMENT IN ROAD AND EQUIPMENT 
Road— 

1 Engineering $ 

2 Land for transportation purposes 

3 Grading 

5 Tunnels and subways 

6 Bridges, trestles and culverts 

8 Ties 

9 Rails 

10 Other track material 

11 Ballast 

12 Track laying and surfacing 

13 Right-of-way fences 

14 Snow and sand fences and snow sheds 

15 Crossings and signs 

16 Station and office buildings 

17 Roadway buildings 

18 Water stations 

19 Fuel stations 

20 Shops and engine houses 

21 Grani elevators 

22 Storage warehouses 

23 Wharves and docks 

26 Telegraph and telephones lines 

27 Signals and interlockers 

29 Power plant buildings 

30 Power substation buildings 

31 Power transmission systems 

32 Power distribution systems 

33 Power lines, poles and fixtures 

34 Underground conduits 

35 Miscellaneous structures 

36 Paving ' 

37 Roadway machines 

38 Roadway small tools 

39 Assessments for public improvements 

40 Revenues and operating expenses during construction 

41 Cost of road purchased 

43 Other expenditures — Road . .- 

44 Shop machinery 

45 Power plant machinery 

46 Power substation apparatus 

47 Unapplied construction material and supplies 



APPLICABLE TO 



$ 408,619 77 


656,092 69 


3,245,437 05 


39,742 83 


1,806,177 72 


1,089,997 42 


1,617,862 68 


1,523 868 97 


940,084 65 


1,388,452 15 


88,592 86 


19,437 94 


356,699 62 


1,145,362 45 


140,472 06 


362,136 17 


169,386 60 


1,502,796 67 


142,146 46 


189 28 


253,405 44 


356,972 13 


381,820 67 


13,533 15 


3,325 24 


3,802 85 


19,255 85 


5,271 22 


35,482 99 


36,408 87 


4,305 33 


58,634 56 


562 38 


176,790 32 


2,372 06 


1,278,000 00 


32,398 04 


1,056,749 16 


11,477 80 


19,374 25 


153,477 97 


20,234,897 75 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 31 

EXPENDITURES, L^SS RETIREMENTS, DURING THE YEAR 1924, APPLICABLE TO 

INVESTMENT IN ROAD AND EQUIPMENT— Concluded 
Equipment — 

51 Steam locomotives 5,409 028 71 

53 Freight train cars 6,079,426 99 

54 Passenger train cars 4,481,564 35 

55 Motor equipment of cars , 127, 263 58 

56 Floating equipment 4, 622 36 

57 Work equipment 1,011,673 55 

58 Miscellaneous equipment 12, 159 42 

17,125,738 96 

General — 

71 Organization expenses 598 00 

73 Law 745 00 

74 Stationery and printing 8, 725 11 

76 Interest during construction 58, 519 81 

77 Other expenditures— General 72,593 19 

5,201 27 

Total 37, 355,435 44 

Investment expenditures by separately operated properties 1 , 402, 603 27 

Investment expenditures under suspense appropriations 732, 584 39 

Balance sheet adjustments, chiefly the transfer from A/c 701 to A/c 705 

of Hotel properties 13,326, 008 54 

Change in A/c 701 during year 26, 164, 614 56 

Balance at January 1st, 1924 1,810,908,126 08 

Balance at December 31, 1924, as per balance sheet 1,837,072,740 64 



A/C 702— IMPROVEMENTS ON LEASED RAILWAY PROPERTY DURING YEAR 1924 

1 Engineering $ 4,502 70 

2 Land for transportation purposes 1 , 148 09 

3 Grading 50, 137 13 

6 Bridges, trestles and culverts 70, 184 51 

8 Ties 13,293 71 

9 Rails 53, 613 41 

10 Other track material 96, 328 66 

11 Ballast 3,992 46 

12 Track laying and surfacing 37, 682 95 

13 Right-of-way fences 161 04 

15 Crossings and signs 13, 982 25 

16 Station and office buildings 8,318 88 

17 Roadway buildings 8, 237 02 

18 Water stations 21,997 62 

19 Fuel stations 4, 003 54 

20 Shops and engine houses 41 , 907 56 

21 Grain elevators 6,862 39 

23 Wharves and docks 60, 038 60 

26 Telegraphs and telephone lines 189,808 24 

27 Signals and interlockers 6, 470 91 

31 Power transmission systems 1,611 06 

32 Power distribution systems 1 , 730 76 

33 Power lines, poles and fixtures : 65 70 

37 Roadway machines 15 93 

38 Roadway small tools 18 67 

39 Assessments for public improvements 10, 659 43 

44 Shop machinery 25, 157 53 

Investment expenditures by subsidiary companies prior to 1924 — 523,494 83 

Investment expenditures under suspense appropriations 6,846 52 

Change in A/c 702 during year 1,235,321 92 

Balance at January 1st, 1924 4, 625, 329 16 

Balance at December 31st, 1924, per balance sheet 5, 860, 651 08 



Expenditures on properties leased from one system company to another are included in this account. 



32 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF EQUIPMENT ON HAND DECEMBER 31, 1923 
ADDITIONS, RETIREMENTS AND POSITION AT DECEMBER 31, 1924 



— 


December 
31, 1923 


Additions 
during year 


Retirements 
during year 


December 
31, 1924 


Locomotives — 

Passenger — Freight 


2,759 

497 

12 


79 
22 


87 
14 


2,751 

505 

12 


Switching 


Electric locomotives 








Total locomotives 


3,268 


101 


101 


3,268 




Freight equipment — 

Box cars 


87,642 

11,834 

6,059 

16,370 

142 

3,135 

1,718 

1,953 


1,198 
141 
193 
862 


1,972 

562 

63 

164 


86,868 

11,413 

6,189 

17,068 

142 


Flat cars 


Stock cars 


Coal cars ..'. 


Tank cars 


Refrigerator cars 




27 
67 
90 


3,108 
1,753 
2,240 


Caboose cars 


102 
377 


Other cars in freight service 




Total freight equipment 


128,853 


2,873 


2,945 


128,781 




Passenger Equipment — 


976 

241 

284 

329 

84 

119 

251 

104 

1,018 

63 


30 

20 

4 

2 


24 
10 

3 
4 


982 


Second class cars 


251 


Combination cars 


285 


Emmigrant cars 


327 


Dining cars 


84 


Parlor cars 


16 

4 


3 
2 
3 
19 
5 


132 


Sleeping cars 


253 


Postal cars 


101 


Baggage and express cars 


52 

36 


1,051 
94 


Other cars in passenger service 






• Total passenger equipment 


3,469 


164 


73 


3,560 




In Company's Service — 


77 
6,526 


2 
720 


4 
370 


75 


All other cars in company's service 


6,876 




Total in Company's service 


6,603 


722 


374 


6,951 




Total cars 


138,925 


3,759 


3,392 


139,292 






Floating Equipment — 

Car ferries 


8 
5 
3 






8 


Barges 






5 








3 











COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF OPERATING REVENUE PAID IN LABOUR AND 
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 



— 


1924 


1923 


Increase or 
decrease 


Per cent 

Increase or 

decrease 


Gross earnings 


$ cts. 

253,588,182 55 

127,216 017 40 

54-00 

143,242,026 00 
98,875 


$ cts. 
253,135,487 61 
135,745,991 45 
53-63 

151,893,264 91 
104,819 


$ cts. 
Dec. 547,305 06 
Dec. 8,529,974 05 
Inc. 37 

Dec. 8,651,238 91 
Dec. 5,944 


6-93 


Operating labour 


6-28 


Ratio of labour to gross earnings 

Comparison of payroll (including better- 
ments) 


69 
5-70 


Average number of employees. 


5-67 



COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATING 
AS BETWEEN LABOUR, FUEL AND OTHER EXPENSES 


RATIO 


Labour 


54-00 
11 91 
26 77 


53 63 
13 32 
24 97 


Inc. 37 
Dec. 1 41 
Inc. 1 80 


69 


Fuel 


10 59 


Other expenses 


7 21 






Total 


92 68 


91 92 


Inc. 76 


83 







CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 



33 



COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF DOLLAR SPENT AS 
BETWEEN LABOUR, FUEL AND OTHER EXPENSES 



— 


1924 


1923 




58 26 
12 85 
28 89 


58 33 




14 48 




27 10 






Total 


100 00 


100 00 







COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF DOLLAR SPENT OVER 
MAIN OPERATING EXPENSES 



Maintenance of way and structures. 

Maintenance of equipment 

Traffic 

Transportation — Rail 

Miscellaneous operations 

General 

Transportation for investment — Cr 




LOANS FROM DOMINION OF CANADA 



Canadian National — Grand Trunk — 

6% 1920/1921 loan 

6% 1921/1922 loan 

6% 1922/1923 vote No. 137 

6% 1923/1924 vote No. 139 

Advance A/c G.T.P. 4% debentures. 

5% 1924/1925 vote 137 

Less refunded 



Grand Trunk Pacific — 

6% Appropriation Act, 1916 

6% Appropriation Act, 1917 

6% Appropriation A ct, 1918 

6% orders in council 

Advances to pay interest guaranteed by Dominion 

Government 

Receiver's certificates 6% 

3% G.T.P. bonds held by Government 



Canadian Northern Railway — 

3§% advances under 1911 legislation 

4% advances under 1914 legislation 

5% advances under 1915 legislation 

6% advances under 1916 legislation 

6% advances under 1917 legislation 

6% advances under 1918 legislation 

6% advances under 1918 War Measure Act 

6% equipment loans under chap. No. 38, 1918 

6% advances under 1919 Appropriation Act 

6% advances under vote No. 96—1919 

6% advances under vote No. 127—1920 

6% advances under vote No. 115—1920 

6% advances under vote No. 113—1921 

6% advances under vote No. 126—1921 

6% advances under vote No. 126, G.T.P. 1921/1922 
6% advances under vote No. 126, G.T.R. 1921/1922 

6% advances under vote No. 136—1922-1923 

6% advances under vote No. 115—1922-1923 

6% advances under vote No. 139—1923-1924 

5% advances under vote No. 137—1924-1925 



Principal 
outstanding 

at 

December 31, 

1924 



$ cts. 

25,000,000 00 
55,293,435 18 
23,288,737 15 

15,000,000 00 

452,647 61 

14,259,435 69 



4,555,843 45 
4,196,073 72 
5,787,439 93 
6,000,000 00 

19,543,640 07 
49,077,692 36 
33,048,000 00 



2,396, 

5,294, 
10,000, 
15,000, 
25,000, 
25,000, 

1,887, 
13,951, 
35,000, 
23,362, 
48,611, 
15,503, 

1,725, 
24,500, 
11,733, 
. 8,186, 
42,800, 

2,315, 
12,655, 

8,491, 



099 68 
000 02 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
821 16 
328 28 
000 00 
212 73 
077 00 
426 34 
723 30 
000 00 
625 27 
181 15 
000 00 
805 79 
019 57 
553 57 



$560,397,957 64 



Interest 

accrued 

1924 



I cts. 
1,500,000 00 
3,317,606 10 
1,397,324 76 

130, 169 29 

600,000 00 
10,879 31 

302,597 40 



273,350 60 
251,764 42 
347,246 40 
360,000 00 



2,865,405 33 
991,440,00 



83, 

211, 

500, 

900, 

1,500, 

1,500, 

113, 

837, 

2,100, 

1,401, 

2,916, 

930, 

103, 

1,470, 

704, 

491, 

2,568, 

138, 

817, 

240, 



863 48 
760 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
269 26 
079 70 
000 00 
732 76 
664 62 
205 58 
543 40 
000 00 
017 52 
170 86 
000 00 
948 34 
564 85 
633 82 



$31,271,043 00 



Interest 

accrued 

1923 



$ cts. 

1,500,000 00 

3,259,925 13 

1,130,789 68 

109,183 94 

600,000 00 



273,350 60 
251,764 42 
347,246 40 
360,000 00 



2,632,567 98 
991,440 00 



83, 

211, 

500, 

900, 

1,500, 

1,500, 

113, 

837, 

2,100, 

1,401, 

2,916, 

930, 

103, 

1,472, 

723, 

491, 

2,456, 

115, 

345, 



863 48 
760 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
269 26 
079 70 
000 00 
732 76 
664,62 
205 58 
543 40 
239 73 
152 22 
170 87 
716 82 
020 79 
256 29 



$30,157,943 67 



6059—3 



34 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



A-C 546-INTEREST ON FUNDED DEBT 
A-C 755— UNMATURED FUNDED DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC 



Name of Security 



Guaranteed by Dominion Government — 

5^ Perpetual debenture stock 

5' G . W. perpetual debenture stock 

4% Perpetual debenture stock 

S thern Railway perpetual debenture 

stock 

rpetual guaranteed stock 

7 l q Sinking fund gold debenture bonds 

king fund gold debenture bonds 

o r 'p 1st mortgage bonds (ex. Government hold- 
ings) 

i% Sterling bonds, due 1962 

o^o 1st mortgage debenture stock 

3^ 1st mortgage debenture stock 

4^ Debenutre stock 

:iking fund debenture bonds 

6^ Sinking fund debenture bonds 

5£ l c 5 year secured notes 

5^ 3 year guaranteed notes 

3 j% 1st motgage debenture stock 

3^ 1st mortgage debenture stock 

5% Equipment trust — Series "G" 



5% 30 year bonds 

4% 3 year guaranteed gold notes... . 
4J% 30 year guaranteed gold bonds. 

Guaranteed by Province of Ontario — 
3^o 1st Mortgage debenture stock.. 

Guaranteed by Province of Manitoba: 
4% Consolidated debenture bonds.. 

4% Sift on branch bonds 

4% Gilbert plains branch bonds 

4% Man. & south eastern bonds 

4% Ontario division bonds 

4\% Ontario division bonds 

4% Winnipeg terminal bonds 

4% 1st mortgage debenture stock... 
4% Province of Manitoba bonds 



Guaranteed by Province of Saskatchewan — 

4% 1st mortgage bonds 

4% 1st mortgage debenture stock 



Guaranteed by Province of Alberta — 

4% 1st mortgage bonds— 1942 

4% 1st mortagge bonds — 1939 

4% 1st mortgage debenture stock 

4|% 1st mortgage debenture stock — 1943.. 
W^o 1st mortgage debenture stock. .1942.. 

9 uaranteed by province of British Columbia — 

4% 1st mprtgage debenture stock 

4£% Terminal debenture stock 



Carried forward . 



Issuing 
company 



G.T.R... 
G.T.R.... 
G.T.R... . 

G.T.R... . 
G.T.R.... 
G.T.R.... 
G.T.R.... 

G.T.P.... 
G.T.P.... 

Can. Nor. 
Can. Nor. 
Can. Nor. 
Can. Nor. 
Can. Nor. 
Can. Nor. 
Can Nor.. 
C.N.A.... 
C.N.O.... 
Can. Nat. 

Can. Nat. 
Can. Nat. 
Can. Nat. 



C.N.O. 



Can. 

Can. 
Can. 
Can. 
Can. 
Can. 
Can. 
Can. 
Can. 



Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 
Nor. 



G.T.P.... 

Can. Nor. 



G.T.P 
G.T.P 
Can. Nor 
C.N.W.. 
C.N.W.. 



C.N.P. 
C.N.P. 



Date 

of 

maturity 



Perpetual. 
Perpetual. 
Perpetual. 



Perpetual 

Perpetual.. . . 
Oct. 1,1940... 
Sept.l, 1936.. 

Jan. 1,1962... 
Jan. 1,1962... 
July 10,1953.. 
July 20, 1958.. 
Sept. 1,1934.. 
Dec.l, 1940.. 
July 1,1946... 
Dec. 1,1924... 
Mar. 1,1925... 
May 4, 1960... 
May 19, 1961. 
Serially 1-8- 

1938 

Feb. 1,1954.. 
July 1,1927... 
Sept. 15, 1954. 



1936 & 1938. 



June 30, 1930. 
Feb. 1,1929.. 
Nov. 1,1930. 
Feb. 1,1929.. 
June 30, 1930. 
June 30, 1930. 
July 1,1939.. 
June 30, 1930. 
Sept. 1,1931. 



Jan 22, 1939.. 
Jan. 23, 1939.. 



Feb. 15, 1942. 
Feb. 15, 1939 
Feb. 25, 1939 
Oct. 22, 1943. 
Feb. 16, 1942. 



April 2, 1950. 
April 2, 1950. 



Principal 

outstanding 

at Dec. 31, 

1924 



$ cts. 

20,782,491 67 
13,252,322 67 
119,839,014 33 

1,499,979 67 
60,833,333 33 
24,743,000 00 
25,000,000 00 

34,992,000 00 

8,440,848 00 

9,359.996 72 

7,896,588 26 

17,060,333 33 

24,793,000 00 

25,000,000 00 

11,000,000 00 

3,149,998 66 

34,229,996 87 

21,000,000 00 
50,000,000 00 
20,000,000 00 
26,000,000 00 



7,859,997 59 



10,784,046 65 

1,137,340 00 

2,433 33 

512,460 00 

5,676,966 66 

67,646 67 

3,000,000 00 

2,859,998 87 

349,000 00 



9,874,062 00 
8,029,999 09 



1,153,764 00 
2,430,000 00 
5,586,665 64 
2,799,997 73 
6,424,000 00 



16,412,001 13 
8,614,000 00 



652,447,283 77 



Interest 

accrued 

1924 



$ cts. 

1,039,124 58 

662,616 12 

4,793,560 56 

59,999 18 
2,433,333 33 
1,732,010 00 
1,500,000 00 



1,049 
337 
280 
276 
682 

1,735 

1.625 
302 
550 
110 

1,198 



,760 00 
,633 92 
,799 86 
,380 46 
,413 34 
,510 00 
, 000 00 
.500 00 
,000 00 
,249,94 
,049 84 



1,075,000 00 

2,261.858 75 

305,753 33 

334,839 04 



275,099 90 



431,361 86 

45,493 60 

97 32 

20,498 38 

227,078 67 

3,044 10 

120,000 00 

114,399 92 

13,960 00 



394,962 48 
321,200 00 



46,150,56 

97,200 00 

223,466 62 

125,999 90 

289,080 00 



656,480 07 
387,630 00 



28,139,595 63 



Interest 

accrued 

1923 



$ cts. 

1,039,124 58 

662,616 12 

4,793,560 56 

59,999 18 
2,433,333 33 
1,732,010 00 
1,500,000 00 



1,049 
337 
280 
276 
682 

1,735 

1,625 
330 
550 
110 

1,198 



, 760 00 
,633 92 
,799 86 
,380 46 
,413 34 
,510 00 
,000 00 
,000 00 
,000 00 
,249 94 
,049 84 



453,880 61 



275,099 90 



431,361 86 

45,493 60 

97 32 

20,498 38 

227,039 74 

3,087 90 

120,000 00 

114,399 92 

13,960 00 



394,962 48 
321,200 00 



46.150 56 

97,200 00 

223,466 62 

125.999 90 

289,080 00 



656,480 07 
387,630 00 



24,643,529 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 



35 



A-C 546— INTEREST OF FUNDED DEBT— Continued 
.-C 755— UNMATURED FUNDED DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC— Continued 



Name of Security 



Issuing 
company 



Date 

of 
maturity 



Principal 

outstanding 

at Dec. 31, 

1924 



Interest 
accrued 
1924 



Interest 

accrued 

1923 



Brought forward . 



Unguaranteed [By Provinces or Dominion) — 
4% Canada Atlantic 1st mortgage bonds... . 

Vs. Wellington, Grey & Bruce bonds 

6% Northern railway 3rd preference bonds. 



5% Equipment trust— Series "D" 

6% Equipment trust notes "U.S.R.A." 

6£%Equipmenttrustcertificates"F" 

4% 2nd mo-tgage prairie "A" 

4% 2nd mortgage mountain "B" 

4% 1st mortgage lake Superior 

4% Perpetual debenture stock 

4% Perpetual consolidated debenture stock. 

4|% Prince Albert branch bonds 

6% Equipment trust — Series 'A" 

6% Equipment trust — Series "B" 

6% Equipment trust — Series "C" 

6% Equipment trust — Series "D" 

7% Equipment trust — Series "E" 

5% Equipment trust — Series "K-l" 

5% Equipment trust — Series "L-l" 

6% 5 year collateral trust gold notes 

4% Perpetual consolidated debenture stock . 

5% 1st mortgage bonds 

5% 1st mortgage bonds 

4% Perpetual consolidated debenture stock. 

4% 1st mortgage gold bonds 

4% 1st mortgage perpetual debenture stock. 

Z\% 1st mortgage bonds 

4% 1st mortgage debenture stock 



5% 1st mortgage rent charge bonds. 



4% 1st mortgage debenture stock 

4% 1st mortgage bonds 

6% Equipment trust notes 

5% 1st mortgage bonds 

Interest on securities retired in 1923, etc. 
4§% Equipment trust Series "H" 



Fixed charges due public per income A-c 546. 



3f% New England elevator company, firsts. 

4% Portland Elevator Company, firsts 

4% Pembroke Southern Railway, firsts 

5% C.N. Coal and Ore dock, firsts 

4% Montreal warehousing Co. , firsts 



G.T.R 

G.T.R 

G.T.R 

G.T.R 

G.T.R 

G.T.R 

G.T.P 

G.T.P 

G.T.P 

G.T.P 

Can. Nor.. 
Can . Nor . . 
Can. Nor.. 
Can. Nor.. 
Can. Nor.. 
Can. Nor.. 
Can. Nor. . 
Can. Nor.. 
Can. Nor.. 
Can. Nor.. 

C.N.O 

C.O.R 

Bav of Quinte 

C.N.Q 

G.N. of C.... 
Q.&L.St.J.... 

H.&S.W 

Q.L.L.&S.R. 

R 

M.R. Tnl. & 

Tml 

D.W. &P.. 

G.T.W 

G.T.W 

G.T.Jct... 



Jan. 1,1955... 
July 1,1901.. 
Indetermin- 
able 

Aug. 1,1927.. 
Jan. 15,1935.. 
Feb. 1,1936.. 
April 1,1955. 
April 1,1955. 
April 1,1955. 

Perpetual 

Perpetual.. . . 
June 30, 1930. 
July 1,1928.. 
Jan. 1,1929... 
May 1, 1929.. 
Dec. 1,1929.. 
May 1, 1935.. 
Oct. 1,1924.. 
Aug. 1,1926.. 
Aug. 1,1924.. 
Perpetual.. . . 
Jan. 1,1934... 
Jan. 2, 1927... 

Perpetual 

Oct. 1,1934.. 

Perpetual 

Sept. 30, 1942 

July 1,1936... 

.April 15, 1970 
June 1,1939.. 
July 1,1950.. 
Jan. 15,1935.. 
Jan. 1,1934... 



$ cts 
652,447,283 77 



16,000,092 00 
240,413 33 



28, 



% cts. 
l39,595 63 



640,003 68 
26,800 70 



$ cts. 
24,643,529 99 



640,003 68 
27,242 54 



70, 

• 750, 

658 

11,230, 

10,206, 

9,963, 

7,533, 

34,879, 

44,943, 

300, 

.1,700, 

3,375, 

3,375. 

3.750, 

14,000, 



566 66 
000 00 
,900 00 
,000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
252 86 
019 40 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 



260,000 00 

8,724,113 20 
794,240 05 
730,000 00 
5,250,369 26 
3,510,250 00 
4,252,503 06 
4,447,000 00 

5,019,539 

1,849,820 00 

7,004,997 27 

10,964,416 00 

2,271,500 00 

938,960 00 



4, 

41, 

39, 

729, 

408, 

398, 

301, 

1,395, 

1,797, 

13, 

115, 

213, 

228, 

255, 

980, 

5, 

15, 

152, 

348, 

39, 

36, 

210. 

140, 

170, 

155, 



234 00 
666 67 
534 00 
950 00 
240 00 
520 00 
320 00 
170 12 
720 74 
500 00 
500 00 
750 00 
750 00 
000 00 
000 00 
437 50 
200 00 
215 00 
964 50 
712 00 
500 00 
014 76 
410 00 
100 14 
645 00 



301 

1,395 

1,797 

13 

142 

258 

273 

300 

980 

16 

21 

260 

348 

39 

36 

210 

140 

170 

155 



,234 00 
,166 66 
,128 00 
,950 00 
,240 00 
,520 00 
,320 00 
,170 12 
,720 74 
,500 00 
,500 00 
, 750 00 
, 750 00 
,000 00 
,000 00 
,000 00 
, 800 00 
,940 00 
,964 50 
,772 83 
,500 00 
,014 76 
,410 00 
,100 14 
, 645 00 



200,781 14 

93,700 57 
280,200 00 
438,576 64 
136,806 25 

46,948 00 



Can. Na*. 



July 1,1939.. 



9,375,000 00 



161,237 10 



200,781 14 

97,529 43 
240,199 84 
438,576 64 
149,196 25 
46,948 00 
16,276 02 



38,361,704 14 



35,041,380 28 



5% Rail and River Coal Company, firsts 

5% Niagara, St . Catharines & Toronto Ry . Company, firsts . 

\\% Toronto Suburban debenture stock 

5% Canadian Northern Income charge debenture stock 

Canadian National Realities Ltd. Outstanding mortgages . . . 



Total debt held by public, per balance sheet A-C 755. 



July 1,1941.. 
Jan. 1, 1937.. 
Sept. 1,1956. 
Jan. 1,1936... 
April 1,1936. 

April 1,1938. 
Nov. 1, 1929. 
July 15, 1961. 
May 16, 1930. 
Various 



170,000 00 
65,000 00 

150,000 00 
1,375,000 00 
1,000,000 00 

1,524,000 00 

1,098,000 00 

2,628,000 00 

24,137,846 08 

951,000 00 



Interest charged A-C 542. 

Interest charged A-C 542 . 

Interest charged A-C 542 

Interest charged A-C 542 

Interest in Result of Separ- 
ately 

Operated Properties 
Operated Properties 
Operated Properties 

Interest not earned 

Interest in Result of Separ- 
ately Operated propertie .■ 



913,913,082 80 



6058—31 



36 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
STATISTICS OF RAIL-LINE OPERATION 



Item Number 



Year 1924 



Year 1923 



1. Average mileage of road operated. 
Train Miles — 

1 1 Freight — Ordinary 

12 " —Light 



13 

14 Passenger. 

15 Mixed 

16 Special 



-Total. 



17 Total transportation service. 



18 Work service 

Locomotive Miles — 

21 Freight— Principal. 

22 " — Helper.. 

23 " —Light.... 



2i 



-Total. 



25 Passenger— Principal. 

26 " —Helper. . . 

27 " —Light.... 



28 



-Total. 



29 Mixed train — Principal. 

30 " —Helper... 

31 " —Light.... 



32 



—Total. 



33 Special— Principal. 

34 " —Helper... 

35 " —Light.... 



36 " —Total.. 

37 Train switching. 



38 Yard switching— Freight... 

39 " —Passenger. 



40 " —Total 

41 Total transportation service. 



42 Work service 

Car Miles — 

51 Freight Train— Loaded. 

52 " —Empty. 



53 Sum of loaded and Empty. 

54 Freight Train— Caboose. . . 



55 



-Total. 



56 Passenger Train— Passenger 

57 " — Sleeping, parlor and observation. 
,58 " —Dining 

59 " —Other 



-Total. 



61 Mixed train— Freight— Loaded 

62 —Freight— Empty 

63 — Caboose 

64 " — Passenger 

65 —Sleeping , parlor and observation . 

66 —Dining 

67 " — Other passenger train 



-Total. 



21,865 99 



29,811,416 



23,410,063 

3,672,533 

23,265 



56,917,277 



2,728,355 



29,834,085 
669,494 
546,084 



31,049,663 



23,410,071 
186,200 
491,566 



24,087,837 



3,672,614 
13,263 
41,1 



3,727,866 



23,265 

1,516 

423 



25,204 



3,688,684 



12,356,316 
1,085,686 



13,442,002 



76,021,256 



3,436,762 



737,979,275 
363,252,703 



1,101,231,978 
30,194,756 



1,131,426,734 



59,255,893 

38,527,906 

6,616,625 

56,055,979 



160,456,403 



20,819,698 
8,355,861 
1,506,061 
5,219,812 
78,588 
1,847 
2,205,499 



38,187,366 



21,805 14 



34,073,929 



23,241,846 

3,536,792 

27, 680 



60,! 



,247 



3,236,717 



34,105,821 
814,572 
736,207 



35,656,600 



23,241,851 
150,902 
483,398 



23,876,251 



3,536,859 
13,553 
31,561 



3,581,973 



27,680 

430 

'671 



28.781 



3,942,175 



13,530,476 
1,197,664 



14,728,140 



81,813,920 



3,881,707 



797,189,578 
413,047,269 



1,210,236,847 
34,419,364 



1,244,656,211 



58,774,479 

35,140,885 

6,457,551 

56,017,555 



156,390,470 



21,107,166 
8,177,308 
1,320,297 
4,981,182 
31,503 
917 
2,048,471 



17,666,844 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 
STATISTICS OF RAIL-LINE OPERATION— Continued 



37 



Item Number 



Year 1924 



Year 1923 



Car Miles — Concluded 

69 Special train— Freight— Loaded 

70 " —Freight— Empty 

71 — Caboose 

72 " — Passenger 

73 " — Sleeping, parlor and observation 

74 " —Dining 

75 " — Other passenger train 

76 " —Total 

77 Total transportation service 

78 Work service 

Freight Service — 

81 Tons — Revenue freight 

82 " — Non-revenue freight 

83 " —Total 

84 Ton-miles — Revenue freight 

85 " — Non-revenue freight 

86 " —Total 

Passenger Service — 

97 Passengers carried — Revenue 

98 Passenger miles 

Revenues and Expenses — 

101 Freight and revenue 

102 Passenger revenue 

103 Passenger service train revenue 

104 Operating revenues 

105 Operating expenses 

106 Net operating revenues 

Averages per Mile of Road — 

111 Freight train miles 

112 Passenger train miles 

113 Mixed train miles 

114 Special train miles 

115 Transportation service train miles 

116 Work train miles 

117 Locomotive miles — Transportation 

118 Freight service car miles 

119 Passenger ser\ ice car miles 

120 Freight revenue 

121 Passenger service train revenue 

122 Operating revenues 

123 Operaaing expenses 

124 Net operating revenues 

125 Ton miles — Revenue freight 

126 " —All freight 

127 Passenger miles— Revenue 

Averages per Train Mile — 

131 Loaded freight car-miles — Freight trains 

132 " " " —Mixed trains 

133 Empty " " — Freight trains 

134 " " " —Mixed 

135 Ton-miles — Revenue freight 

136 " —All freight 

137 Passenger train car-miles — Passenger trains 

138 " " " —Mixed trains 

139 Revenue passenger miles 

140 Freight revenue 

141 Passenger service train revenue 

142 Operating revenues 

143 Opertaing expenses 

144 N et operating revenues 



255,201 

4,385 

21,476 

51,105 

25,853 

582 

7,941 



313,190 
13,837 
26,529 
48,568 
47,677 
981 
12,391 



366,543 


463,173 


1,330,437,046 


1,439,176,698 


17,863,271 


16,712,235 


52,498,614 
9,698,732 


57,248,338 
11,942,587 


62,197,346 


69,190,935 


16,932,406,010 
1,926,838,917 


18,546,404,436 
2,403,141,782 


18,859,244,927 


20,949,546,218 
. i. 



22,707,880 
1,372,335,263 



$ 171,045,297 89 

37,233,998 44 

57,098,834 48 

235,588,182 55 

218,343,931 07 

17,244,251 48 



1,363 
1,071 

168 

1 

2,603 

125 

3,477 

53,160 

7,685 

$7,822 44 

$ 2,611 31 

$10,774 18 

$9,9855 4, 

$ 788 64 

774,372 

862,492 

62,761 



24-75 

5-67 

12-19 

2-28 

516-83 

575-64 

6-85 

2-04 

56-87 

$5 22 

$2 37 

$4 14 

$3 84 

$ 30 



23,683,781 
,446,779,216 



$ 185,240,896 71 

39,285,318 14 

59,322,069 15 

253,135,487 61 

232,704,838 53 

20,430,649 08 



1,563 

1,066 

162 

1 

2,792 

148 

3,752 

58,501 

7,501 

$8,495 29 

$ 2,720 55 

$11,608 98 

$10,672 02 

$ 936 96 

850,552 

960,762 

66,350 



23-40 

5-97 

12-12 

2-31 

501-94 

567-01 

6-73 

2-00 

60-52 

$5 01 

$2 48 

$4 16 

$3 82 

$ 34 



38 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
STATISTICS OF RAIL-LINE OPERATION— Continued 



Item Number 



Year 1923 



Year 1922 



Average per locomotive mile — 

151 Train Miles — Freight trains 

152 rar " — " 

153 Train " — Passenger trains 

154 Car " — Passenger trains 

155 Train " — Mixed trains 

156 Car " — Mixed trains 

157 Train " — Special trains 

158 Car " — Special trains 

161 Ton-miles revenue freight 

162 " —All freight 

163 Freight revenue 

Averages per Car Mile — Passenger — 

171 Passenger miles — Revenue 

172 Passenger revenue 

MisccUarieous Averages — 

181 Miles hauled — Revenue freight 

182 " — Non-revenue freight 

183 " —All freight 

184 Miles carried — Revenue passengers. 

185 Revenue per ton of freight 

186 ton mile of freight 

187 passenger, 

188 passenger-mile 

189 Operating ratio 



•96 

36-44 

•97 

6-66 

•99 

10-24 
•92 

14-54 

22-31 

24-85 
■22542 



13-31 
$ -36121 



322-53 
198-67 
303-22 
60-43 
$ 3-25809 
$ -01010 
$ 1-63970 
$ -02713 
92-68% 



•96 
34-91 

•97 
6-55 

•99 
10-52 

•96 
16 09 

22-66 
25-59 
•2263 



14-62 
$ -39711 



323-96 

201-22 

302-78 

61-09 



3-23574 
•00999 

1-65874 
•02715 

91-92% 



COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUE TONNAGE BY COMMODITIES 



— 


Year 
1924 


Year 
1923 


Increase 
Decrease 


Products of Agriculture — 

Wheat 


Tons 

5,317,519 
402,728 

1,274,202 

463,359 

286 949 

89,567 

105,277 

1,239,649 
797,573 
550,778 
47,100 
88,502 
298,843 
232,426 
164,217 
410,599 

50,551 

464,925 

41,735 

205,720 

286,774 

26,991 

163,038 

20,495 

55,342 

124,628 

21,499 

77,410 

44,653 


Tons 

6,008,725 

491,803 

1,073,145 

371,182 

111,237 

59,632 

58,820 

1,236,051 

604,474 

484,549 

51,898 

85,800 

309,270 

198,610 

120,741 

373,882 

48,612 

516,165 

32,885 

145,715 

349,709 

37,537 

164,406 

24,015 

66,184 

126,315 

21,111 

90,050 

54,822 


Tons 
691,206 


Corn 


89,075 


Oats 


201,057 


Barley 


92, 177 


Rye 


175,712 


Flax (seed) 


29,935 


Other grain 


46,457 


Flour 


3,598 


Other mill products 


193,099 


Hay and straw 


66,229 


Cotton 


4,798 


Apples (fresh) 


2,702 


Other fresh fruits 


10,427 


Potatoes 


33,816 


Other fresh vegetables 


43,476 




36,717 


Products of Animals — 

Horses and mules. . . 


1,939 


Cattle and calves 


51,240 


Sheep and goats 


8,850 


Hogs 


60,005 


Dressed meats (fresh) 


62,935 


Dressed meats (cured or salted) 


10,546 




1,368 


Poultry 


3,520 


Eggs 


10,842 


Butter and cheese 


1,687 


Wool 


388 


Hides and leather 


12,640 


Other products of animals 


10,169 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 39 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUE TONNAGE BY COMMODITIES— Continued 



Year 
1924 



Year 
1923 



Increase 
Decrease 



Products of Mines — 

Anthracite coal 

Bituminous coal 

Lignite coal 

Coke 

Iron ores , 

Other ores and concentrates 

Bullion and matte 

Clay, gravel, sand and crushed stone 

Slate, store, granite (dimension or block) 

Crude petroleum , 

Asphaltum , 

Salt 

Other products of mines , 

Products of Forests — 

Logs, posts, poles and cordwood , 

Ties 

Pulpwood 

Sawed lumber, timber, box shooks, staves and headings 
Other products of forests 

Manufactures and Miscellaneous — 

Refined petroleum and its products 

Sugar, syrup, glucose and molasses 

Iron, Pig and bloom 

Rails and fastenings 

Bar and sheet iron, structural iron and iron pipe 

Castings, machinery and boilers , , , 

Cement 

Brick and artificial stone 

Lime and plaster 

Sewer pipe and drain tile 

Agricultural implements and vehicles other than autos . . 

Automobiles and auto trucks 

Household goods and second hand furniture 

Furniture (new) 

Liquor and beverages 

Fertilizer 

Paper, printed matter and books 

Wood pulp » 

Fish (fresh, frozen, smoked or salted) 

Canned meats 

Canned goods (all canned food products other than meat) 

Other manufactures and miscellaneous 

Merchandise 

Grand total 



Tons 

2,687,710 

8,090,539 

119,180 

413,290 

264,582 

292,892 

38,532 

3,828,670 

811, ( 

234,685 

63,354 

406,225 

175,175 



2,009,773 

146,084 

2,677,338 

4,179,516 

141,995 



1,129,523 

422,198 

259,555 

56,992 

557, ( 

268,766 

1,070,043 

416,343 

301,135 

115,720 

121,320 

643,826 

47,282 

42,980 

100,430 

136,956 

922,729 

852,597 

69,704 

1,199 

154,619 

2,974,308 

1,899,026 



Tons 

3,188,977 

10,602,469 

101,643 

475, 144 

552,315 

256,572 

35,038 

2,994,558 

1,071,870 

231,783 

60,834 

346,202 

197,780 



1,929,385 

190,861 

2,716,044 

4,741,125 

274,251 



1,064,152 

382,331 

419,404 

120,751 

848,130 

524,554 

974,265 

484,695 

346,116 

81,978 

123,816 

759,364 

68,221 

46,191 

81,138 

122,367 

974,543 

784,212 

67,892 

3,862 

128,535 

3,464,239 

2,093,386 



Tons 



501,267 

,511,930 

17,537 

61,854 

287,733 

36,320 

7,494 

834,112 

260,182 

2,902 

2,520 

60,023 

22,605 



80,388 

UJ77 

38,706 

561 , 609 

132,256 



65,371 

39,867 

159,849 

63,759 

291 , 0U 

255,788 

95,778 

68,352 

U,981 

33,742 

2,496 

115,538 

20,939 

3,211 

19,292 

14,589 

51,814 

68,385 

1,812 

2,663 

26,084 

489,931 

194,360 



52,498,614 



57,248,338 



4,749,724 



TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT 

Miles of pole line operated 21 , 863 

Miles of wire operated 118, 276 

Number of offices operated 1 , 756 

Officers and employees in service 3,790 

Wages paid during year $ 2,508,353 

Capital expenditures made during year $ 568,302 

The above figures are exclusive of 126 separate Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph offices, the operations 
of which resulted in a deficit of §27,511. 



40 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



EXPRESS DEPARTMENT 

Number of officers and employees 3, 109 

Wages paid during year $ 4, 178,886 45 

Capital expenditures $ 72,545 66 

The equipment includes 562 horses, 125 motor trucks, 6 motor trailers, 3 electric tractors, 1,090 wagon, 
and sleighs, 68 single and doulbe hubrunners, 581 office safes, 772 train safes, 524 single and double harness 
3,006 platform trucks and sleighs. 

Special business handled during the year included the following items: — 

Fish. „ 63, 710, 700 pounds 

Lobster 1,564,996 " 

65,275,696 " 

Fruit (foreign) (U.S.A.) 2,964,530 " 

Fruit (domestic) 30,447,024 " 

33,411,554 " 

Horses (commercial) 49 cars 

Horses (race) ' 228 " 

Horses (show) 15 " 

292 " 
Foxes 8, 122 

SCHEDULE OF COMPANIES COMPRISING THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY 

SYSTEM 



Name of Issuing Company 



Capital 
Stock 



Held by 
System 



Held by 

Government 

and other 



Canadian National Railway Company 

Bay City terminal Eailway Company 

Canada Atlantic Transit Company 

*Canada Atlantic Transit Company of U. S 

The Canadian Express Company 

The Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad Com- 
pany 

*Chicago New York and Boston Refrigerator Com- 
pany 

Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway 
Company 

The Erie, London and Tillsonburg Railway Com- 
pany 

Grand Rapids Terminal Railroad Company 

The Grand Trunk Junction Railway Company 

Grand Trunk Western Railway Company 

International Bridge Company 

The Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve 
Railay Company 

The Michigan Air Line Railway 

*Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company 

The Maganetawan River Railway Company 

*The Montreal Warehousing Company 

New England Elevator Company 

*The Oshawa Railway Company 

The Ottawa Terminals Railway Company 

The Pembroke Southern Railway Company 

Portland Elevator Company 

*Rail and River Coal Company 

Realty Assets Company, Limited 

St. Clair Tunnel Company 

*The Terminal Warehousing Company, Limited 

The Thousand Islands Railway Company 

Toledo, Saginaw and Muskegon Railway Company 

The Toronto Belt Line Railway Company 

Transcontinental Townsite Company Limited 

The United States and Canada Railroad Company. 

Vermont and Province Line Railroad Company 

The Pontiac, Oxford and Northern Railroad Com- 
pany 

The Detroit and Huron Railway Company 

The Chicago and Kalamazoo Terminal Railroad 
Company 

Grand Trunk-Milwaukee Car Ferry Company 

Whipple Car Company 

Total Canadian National Railway (Grand Trunk) 



$ cts. 

180,424,327 70 

15,000 00 

219,000 00 

250,000 00 

1,768,800 00 

50,000 00 

1,129,400 00 

1,500,000 00 

12,500 00 

50,000 00 

500,000 00 

6,000,000 00 

1,500,000 00 



300 
500 

30 
236 
400 

40 
250 
107 

50, 
2,000 ; 

700, 

1,000, 

60, 

1,600 

50 

467 

219 

200 



120 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
800 00 
000 00 
000 00 
504 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
800 00 
400 00 
000 00 



1,000,000 00 
148,000 00 

100,000 00 

200, 000 00 

1,400,000 00 



tl4 



S cts. 

796,589 00 

15,000 00 

219,000 CO 

250,000 00 

1,768,800 00 

50,000 00 

1,129,400 00 

1,500,000 00 

12,500 00 

50,000 00 

500,000 00 

6,000,000 00 

1,500,000 00 



300 
306 

30 
220 
400 

40 
250 

90 

50 
2,000 

700 

1,000 

60 

1,600 

26 

467 

218 

200 



120 00 
000 00 
500 00 
000 00 
300 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
500 00 
000 00 
000 00 
504 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
800 00 
325 00 
000 00 



1,000,000 00 
148,000 00 

100,000 00 

200,000 00 

1,400,000 00 



$ cts. 
tl65,627,738 70 



193,500 00 
15,700 00 

17,300 00 



24,000 00 
475 00 



204,478,651 70 



38,599,938 00 



165,878,713 70 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 



41 



SCHEDULE OF COMPANIES COMPRISING THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY 

SYSTEM— Continued 



Name of Issuing Company 


Capital 
Stock 


Held by 
System 


Held by 

Government 

and others 


The Canadian Northern Railway Company 


$ cts. 

100,000,600 00 

1,395,000 00 

125,000 00 

3,000,000 00 

1,000,000 00 

250,000 00 

10,000,000 00 

25,000,000 00 

9,550,000 00 

40,000 00 

1,000,000 00 
2,000,000 00 

500,000 00 

50,000 00 

50,000 00 

1,750,000 00 

1,000,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

500,000 00 

500,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

3,331,000 00 

90,000 00 

50,000 00 

100,000 00 

6,000,000 00 

45,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

1,000 00 

373,000 00 


S cts. 

1,395,000 00 

125,000 00 

3,000,000 00 

1,000,000 00 

250,000 00 

10,000,000 00 

25,000,000 00 

5,700,800 00 

40,000 00 

1,000,000 00 
2,000,000 00 

500,000 00 

50,000 00 

50,000 00 

1,750,000 00 

1,000,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

500,000 00 

500,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

3,329,000 00 

90,000 00 

50,000 00 

100,000 00 

6,000,000 00 

45,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

1,000 00 

31,975 00 

331,500 00 
1,000,000 00 

53,000 00 
125,000 00 
128,600 00 
500,000 00 
400,000 00 
100,000 00 

5,000,000 00 

924,900 00 

100,000 00 
4,019,100 00 

201,000 00 
250,000 00 

1,000 00 

12,500 00 
100,000 00 
100,000 00 


$ cts. 
100,000,600 00 


The Bay of Quinte Railway Company .... 




The Bessemer and Barry's Bay R-ailway Company. 
The Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company 
The Canadian Northern Railway Express Company, 
Limited 




Canadian Northern Manitoba Railway Company.. . 
The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company 

Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company 

**The Canadif|n Northern Quebec Railway Company. 
*Canadian National Realties, Limited 


3,849,200 00 


The Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway 
Company 




Canadian Northern Steamships, Limited 




The Canadian Northern Coal and Ore Dock Com- 
pany, Limited 




Canadian Northern Rolling Stock, Limited 




Canadian National Rolling Stock Limited 




*Canadian National Electric Railways 




Canadian National Express Company 




Canadian Northern System Terminals Limited 

*Canadian National Telegraph Company 




*Canadian National Transfer Company 




Canadian Northern Western Railway Company 

The Central Ontario Railway 


2,000 00 


Continental Realty & Holding Company Limited.. . 

The Dalhousie Navigation Company, Limited 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railroad Company.. . 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway Company. . . 

*Duluth and Virginia Realty Company 




* Federal Properties, Limited 




The Great North Western Telegraph Company of 
Canada 


9,525 00 


The Great North Western Telegraph Company 
of Canada (held in escrow) 




The Halifax and South Western Railway Company. 
The Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway Com- 
pany 


1,000,000 00 

53,500 00 
125,000 00 
128,600 00 
500,000 00 
400,000 00 
100,000 00 

5,000,000 00 

925,000 00 

100,000 00 
4,508,300 00 

201,000 00 
250,000 00 

1,000 00 

12,500 00 
100,000 00 
100,000 00 


500 00 


The James Bay and Eastern Railway Company 

The Marmora Railway and Mining Company 

The Lake Superior Terminals Company Limited... . 
The Minnesota and Manitoba Railroad Company . . . 
The Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Company 

ted 




*The Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway 
Company 


100 00 


*The Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Navi- 
gation Company Limited 




The Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Rail- 
road and Steamboat Company 


489,200 00 


St. Boniface Western Land Company 




The St. Charles and Huron River Railway Com- 
pany 




The Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Com- 
pany 




*Toronto Dwellings, Limited 




The Winnipeg Land Company Limited 








Total Canadian Northern Railway Group 


187,205,500 00 


82,854,375 00 


104,351,125 00 



42 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



SCHEDULE OF COMPANIES COMPRISING THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY 

SYSTEM— Concluded 



Name of Issuing Company 


Capital 
Stock 


Held by 
System 


Held by 
Government 
and others 


The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company 

The Grand Trunk Pacific. Branch Lines Company.. . 

The Grand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan Railway 

Company 


S cts. 

24,942,000 00 
1,002,000 00 

200,000 00 

3,000,000 00 

15,000 00 
50,000 00 

501,000 00 
100,000 00 
150,000 00 


$ cts. 

24,942,000 00 
1,002,000 00 

200,000 00 

3,000,000 00 

15,000 00 
50,000 00 

501,000 00 
100,000 00 
150,000 00 


$ cts. 


*The Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company, 
Limited 




§*The Grand Trunk Pacific Coast Steamship Com- 
pany, Limited 




*Grand Trunk Pacific Alaska Steamship Company... 

*Grand Trunk Pacific Terminal Elevator Company, 

(Limited) 




*The Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Company 

*Grand Trunk Pacific Dock Company, of Seattle 




Total Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. Group.. . 


29,960,000 00 


29,960,000 00 




Summary 

Canadian National Railway (Grand Trunk) Group... 
Canadian Northern Railway Group 


204,478,651 70 

187,205 500,00 

29,960,000 00 


38,599,938 00 
82,854,375 00 
29,960 000,00 


165,878,713 70 
104,351,125 00 


Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Group 










421,644,151 70 


151,414,313 00 


1270, 229,838 70 



*The accounts of Companies indicated (*) are taken up in the System Income Account as "Separately 
Operated Properites." 

**S5, 144,600 C.N .Q. Stock is held by the Northern Consolidated Holding Company. The Canadian 
Northern Railway owns 44,467 shares in that Co. out of a total issue of 61,815. For the purpose of this 
statement the Holding Company is ignored and the proportion of the C.N.Q. Stock thus owned by the 
Canadian Northern Railway is shown as held by the latter Company. 

tOne Certificate for $180,424,327.70 of the Company's Capital Stock is issued in the name of His Majesty 
as representing $165,627,738.70 of Grand Trunk Stock previously held by the public and $14,796,589 previous 
ly held in that Company's treasury. 

18265,628,338.70 of this amount is owned by the Dominion of Canada. 

§Name changed to "Canadian National Steamship Company, Limited," February 26th, 1925. 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 



43 



A/C 706— INVESTMENTS IN AFFILIATED COMPANIES 



Company 


Amount 

out- 
standing 


Amount 
owned by 
Canadian 
National 

System 


Book value 


"a" — Stocks — 

Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad Company 

Belt Railway Company of Chicago 


$ cts. 
5,484,000 00 
3,120,000 00 
3,000,000 00 
1,095,000 00 
5,000,000 00 
1,500,000 00 
1,428,000 00 

500,000 00 

50,000 00 

4,000,000 00 

2,000,000 00 

570,900 00 


$ cts. 

224 33 

240,000 00 

2,191,100 00 

522,500 00 

1,000,000 00 

27,900 00 

714,000 00 

250,000 00 

25,000 00 

387,200 00 

1,000,000 00 

900 00 


$ cts, 


Central Vermont Railway Company 




Chicago, Detroit & Canada G.T. Jet., R.R.Co. . . 

Chicago and Western Indiana R.R. Company 

Cincinnati, Saginaw and Mackinaw R.R. Co 

Detroit and Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co 




Ontario Car Ferry Company 




Toronto Terminals Railway Company 




Toledo Terminal Railroad Company 

Detroit Terminal Railroad Company 




Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd 






27,747,900 00 


6,358,824 33 


2,064,960 16 


Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad Company. . . . 

Central Vermont Railway 5% Gold bonds 

Chicago, Detroit and Canada G.T. Jet. R.R. Co. 
Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Consoli- 
dated Bonds 


3,000,000 00 

12,837,300 00 

1,786,141 46 

48,708,666 67 

3,000,000 00 
4,707,000 00 


3,000,000 00 
4,179,300 00 
1,786,141 46 

2,187,000 00 

587,000 00 
73,000 00 




Detroit and Toledo Shore Line R.R. Company 
First Mortgage Bonds 




Toledo Terminal Railroad Company 








"c" — Notes-* 

Central Vermont Railway 


74,039,108 13 


11,812,441 46 


11,790,460 45 






8,041,905 52 










Central Vermont Railway 






8,274,470 05 


Toledo Terminal Railroad Company 






100,800 00 


Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Co. . . 






598,480 42 
















8,973,750 47 


Total Balance Sheet A/C No. 706 






30,871,076 60 



MAIN LINE FIRST TRACK MILEAGE AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1924 

Miles 

Atlantic Region 2,803-83 

Central Region — 

Quebec District 1 , 981 -73 

Montreal District 1,602-78 

Northern Ontario District 2, 154-70 

South Western Ontario District 1, 930-03 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 991 • 69 

Western Region — 

Manitoba Dstrict 3,885-17 

Saskatchewan District 3, 151 -47 

Alberta District 2,070-66 

British Columbia District 1,300-13 

Total milage steam operated lines referred to as "System" Milage. 21,872-19 

LINES CONTROLLED BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS NOT INCLUDED IN 

OPERATING FIGURES 
Canadian National Electric Lines 

Toronto Suburban Railway 58-31 

Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway 61-84 

Total milesage Canadian National Electric lines 120-15 

Lines Controlled by Constituent Companies but Separately Operated 

Central Vermont Railway (steam) 267-95 

New London Northern R.R. (leased line) 180-08 

West River Railroad (leased line) 35-44 

Total mileage for Central Vermont Railway 483-47 

Montreal and Southern Counties Ry . (electric) 53-66 

Thousand Islands Railway (steam) 6-00 

Oshawa Railway (electric) : 



44 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



o 
bf 

J; 

£ 

> 

c 

e 
►— 1 


Spurs, 

Sidings 

Tracks 

and Yard 


Miles 
2 03 
8-97 




© 


© 
to 

iO 


2nd 
Main 
Track 


en 

-2 

3 


o 

o 

© 






o 

CO 

© 


1st 
Main 
Track 


Miles 
16-79 
88-87 


CO 
00 

1>- 

co 


CO 

-<* 

CO 


Spurs, 

Sidings 

and 

Yard 

Tracks 


Miles 
759-90 
2,633-40 

627-66 
2,311-30 


CO 
CM 

CM 

co 

CO 
co" 


ar 

3 

c3 
O 

H 


4th 
Main 
Track 


k5 


oq 






CM 


3rd 

Main 
Track 


03 

a) 

3 


12-21 
9-76 




OS 
CM 


2nd 
Main 
Track 


oc 

3 " 


751-76 

353-43 
87-01 


CO 

to 
ob 

CO 
CM 


1st 
Main 
Track 


Miles 

2,803-83 

7,669-24 

991-69 
10,407-43 


OS 

CM 

00 

CM 


Mileage of 

Trackage 

Rights 


2nd 
Main 
Track 


02 

8 




4-85 
9-09 


OS 

CO 


1st 
Main 
Track 


Miles 
14-98 
30-23 

26-21 
29-47 


100-89 


Mileage of Lines 
under Lease 
or ( Jontract 


2nd 
Main 
Track 


m 
1 


15-40 

11-19 
5-53 


CO 


1st 
Main 
Track 


Miles 
224-78 
476-92 

123-67 
678-33 


© 

8 


Mileage 
owned by Constituent 
Companies 


4th 

Main 
Track 


CO 


CM 
1>- 






CM 


3rd 

Main 
Track 


09 


12-21 
9-76 




CM 


2nd 
Main 
Track 


Miles 
46-38 
736-36 

337-39 
72-39 


1,192-52 


•/. os s3 

""" § Ch 


Miles 
2,564-07 
7, 162 09 

841-81 
9,699-63 


? 

CO 




>• 


3 


c 
c 

'S 

c 

< 


3 
p: 


cr 


C 
C 

"S 

a 

PC 

F 

a 


) 


Total mileage 
Steam Operated 
Lines, referred 
to as "System 
Mileage" 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 45 



ANNUAL REPORT CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

INCLUDING' ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY 
For Year Ended December 31, 1924 

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 
Balance Sheet as at December 31, 1924 

ASSETS 
A/C 

701 Investment in road and equipment — 

investment in road and equipment $ 423, 613, 704 42 

Branch lines purchases 133,418 77 

Capital suspense — Overseas rail 593, 187 92 

701B Abandoned lines 653,733 79 

$ 423,807,669 06 

702 Improvements on leased railway property — 

Lake Superior Branch 508,947 81 

705 Miscellaneous physical property — 

Rail Loan Account 97, 185 95 

*Minaki Inn 370,346 97 

467,532 92 

722 Canadian National Railways 15,441,844 55 



$ 440,225,994 34 

LIABILITIES 

755 Branch line purchases $ 131, 648 77 

757 Non-negotiable debt- 
Dominion of Canada — 

Advances for road and equipment 422, 022, 860 84 

Material and supplies..) .„ ACC 711 AO 

Openaccounts. / 16,066,711 09 

Operating deficits 12,747,834 53 

Advance for workmen's compensation payments 697,014 25 

Advance for pension payments 178,064 27 

451,712,484 98 



774 Operating reserve — 

Rail renewal 52,411 38 

Equipment renewal reserve 175, 558 14 



227,969 52 
784 Profit and Loss Account 11,846. 108 93 

$ 440,225,994 34 



Certified correct 



T. H. Cooper, C. E. Friend, 

General Auditor Asst. General Comptroller. 

I. M. Rosevear, 

General Comptroller. 

PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1924 

Debits 

611 Debit balance at January 1, 1924 $ 12,885,825 65 

612 Debit balance transferred from Income 

613 Surplus applied to Sinking and Other Reserve Funds 

614 Dividend appropriations of surplus 

615 Surplus appropriated for investment in physical property 

616 Stock discount extinguished through surplus 

617 Debt discount extinguished through surplus 

618 Miscellaneous appropriations of surplus 

619 Loss on retired road and euqipment 36, 612 42 

620 Delayed income debits 235, 641 99 

621 Miscellaneous debits 12,923 58 



Total debits $ 13 , 171 , 003 64 

^Includes transfer of January 1, 1925. 



46 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1924— Concluded 

Credits 

602 Credit balance transferred from Income $ 1,310,618 24 

603 Profit on road and equipment sold 

604 Delayed Income Credits 

605 Unrefundable overcharges 373 66 

606 Donations 13,902 81 

Total credits $ 1,324,894 71 

Debit balance at December 31, 1924 $ 11,846,108 93 



INCOME STATEMENT YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924 

1. Operating Income Year ended 

Dec. 31, 1924 
oOl Railway operating revenues % 43, 206, 625 72 

531 Railway operating expenses 41,858,398 43 

Operating ratio 96 ■ 88% 

Net revenue from railway operations 1 , 348, 227 29 

532 Railway tax accruals 132,062 35 

533 Uncollectible railway revenues 8, 682 24 

Railway operating income 1,207,482 70 

502 Revenues from miscellaneous operations 

534 Expenses of miscellaneous operations 

Net revenue from miscellaneous operations 

535 Taxes on miscellaneous operations 

Miscellaneous Operating Income 

Total operating income 1,207,482 70 

II. Non-Operating Income 

503 Hire of freight cars— credit balance 694,883 47 

504 Rent from locomotives 280, 290 80 

505 Rent from passenger train cars 19, 227 79 

506 Rent from floating equipment 

507 Rent from work equipment 117, 363 47 

508 Joint facility rent income 118, 285 50 

509 Income from lease of road 23 , 166 66 

510 Miscellaneous rent income 228,335 22 

511 Miscellaneous non-operating physical property 2, 842 17 

512 Separately operated properties — Profit 

513 Dividend income 

514 Income from funded securities 

515 Income from unfunded securities and accounts 42,597 47 

516 Income from sinking and other reserve funds 

517 Release of premiums on funded debt 

518 Contributions from other companies 

519 Miscellaneous income 48,542 6 5 

Total Non-operating income 1,575,535 20 

Gross income. 2,783,017 90 

III. Deductions from Gross Income 

536 Hire of freight cars — Debit balance 

537 Rent for locomotives. 10,984 06 

538 Rent for passenger train cars 343 ,381 05 

539 Rent for floating equipment 

540 Rent for Work equipment 89,147 77 

541 Joint facility rents 417,307 79 

542 Rent for leased roads 713, 156 84 

543 Miscellaneous rents 582 33 

544 Miscellaneous tax accruals 282 50 

545 Separately operated properties — Loss 

546 Interest on funded debt *. 

547 Interest on unfunded debt 19,340 90 

548 Amortization of discount on funded debt 

549 Maintenance of investment organizations 

550 Income transferred to other companies 

551 Miscellaneous income charges 6,511 96 

Total deductions from gross income 1,472,399 66 

Net income 1, 310, 618 24 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 47 

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

CAPITAL ACCOUNT, YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924 
Intercolonial Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 $ 147,029,710 69 

Construction and betterments during year 843,038 33 

$ 147,872,749 02 

Prince Edward Island Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 13,225,467 33 

Construction and betterments during year 352,748 72 

13,578,216 05 

New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 870,474 06 

Construction and betterments during year 18,091 48 

888,565 54 

International Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 2,996,920 76 

Construction and betterments during year 63, 540 36 

3,060,461 12 

National Transcontinental Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 170,109,281 09 

Construction and betterments during year 1, 181, 616 02 

171,290,897 11 
Less: Cost of Minaki Inn at December 31, 1924, trans- 
ferred 370, 346 97 

170,920,550 14 

Moncton and Buctouche Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 312,719 13 

Construction and betterments during year 105, 089 46 

417,808 59 

Salisbury and Alberta Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 531,058 59 

Construction and betterments during year 46,954 91 

578.013 50 

St. Martins Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 326, 121 44 

Construction and betterments during year 21,565 31 

347,686 75 

Elgin and Havelock Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 152,896 79 

Construction and betterments during year 21,575 84 

174,472 63 

York and Carleton Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 61,541 26 

Construction and betterments during year 1,800 38 

63,341 64 

Quebec and Saguenay Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 7,795,855 33 

Construction and betterments during year 7, 308 30 

7,803,163 63 

Caraquet and Gulf Shore — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 853,420 02 

Construction and betterments during year 74,416 05 

927,836 07 

Lotbiniere and Megantic Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 353,836 16 

Construction and betterments during year Nil 

353,836 16 

Cape Breton Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 115,341 23 

Construction and betterments during year 8,631 37 

106,709 86 

Hudsons Bay Railway — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 14,379,654 18 

Construction and betterments during year 477,729 71 14,857,383 89 

Quebec Bridge — 

To cost of bridge to December 31, 1923 22,640,228 46 

Long Lac Cut Off — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 2, 177, 108 32 

Construction and betterments during year 649,474 73 

2,826,583 05 

Lake Superior Branch — 

To additions and betterments to Dec. 31, 1923 358,685 86 

To additions and betterments during year 150.261 95 

508,947 81 

Lawlor Building, Toronto — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 1,200,000 00 

Additional expenditure during year 30, 673 99 1 , 230, 673 99 



43 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

Canadian Governm-ent Raihvays — 

Coal of rolling stock to JDecember 31, 1923 36,018,274 46 

Expenditure during year , 24, 195 02 

36,042,469 48 
Less: Equipment retired 551,545 26 

35,490,924 22 
Add: Additional to S.S. Northumberland to December 

31, 1923 40,362 74 

35,531,286 96 

Kingsclcar to St. Croix River Branch — 

Construction and betterments during year 7, 864 30 

Capital Suspense — Vale Railway 49, 234 31 

Capital suspense — Branch line aid 36, 485 95 

Branch lines purchased — balance of purchase of — 

Moncton and Buctouche Rv % 70, 000 00 

New Brunswick & Prince Ed. Is. Ry. . . 63,418 77 

133,418 77 

219,139 03 
Deduct — 

Capital suspense— Overseas rails 593, 187 92 

Capital suspense — Moncton & Buctouche 

Ry 5,713 40 

598,901 32 

379.762 29 

Minaki Inn — 

To cost to December 31, 1923 238,404 59 

Additions and betterments during year 131 , 942 38 

370,346 97 

Rail Loan Account — 

To balance at December 31, 1924 97, 185 95 

$ 424,784,149 79 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS— ST. JOHN AND 
QUEBEC RAILWAY 

EARNINGS, EXPENSES AND RENTAL ACCOUNT, YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924. 

Railway operating revenues $ 270, 540 56 

Railway operating expenses 407, 209 56 

Operating deficit 136, 669 00 

Other income items net debit 12, 457 75 

Net deficit 149, 126 75 

In addition to the above 40 per cent of operating revenues has been 

paid as rental 108, 216 22 

Total loss $ 257, 342 97 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

RAIL RENEWAL ACCOUNT— YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924 

There was a credit balance at January 1, 1924, of $ 52,411 38 

Nothing has been charged during the year against this account, leaving 

leaving a credit balance in rail renewal A/C at December 31, 1924 ofS 52,411 38 



EQUIPMENT RENEWAL ACCOUNT— YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924 

There was a credit balance at January 1, 1924, of $ 315,043 26 

Charges during the year 1924, for equipment retired and renewals amount- 
ed to 139,485 12 

Leaving a credit balance in this Account at December 31, 1924, of $ 175,558 14 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 



49 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

STATEMENT OF AVERAGE— YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924 

Mileage of road operated 4,599-52 

Total engine mileage 14, 579, 829 

Total train mileage 11, 681, 108 

Total car mileage 245,459,496 

Earnings— 

Transportation— Rail (Accts. 101 to 112) $ 42,361,830 21 

Incidentals (Accts. 113 to 152) 844,795 51 

Total $ 43, 206 , 625 72 

Operating expenses — 

Rail 41 , 858, 398 43 

Water 

Total 41 , 858 , 398 43 

Ratio of Earnings to Gross Earnings— 

Earnings from transportation — Rail 98-04% 

Earnings from transportation — Water 

Earnings from incidentals 1 • 96% 

Earnings per mile of road operated $ 9, 393 72 

Earnings per engine mile 2 96 

Earnings per train mile 3 70 

Earnings per car mile 17 60 

Ratio of Expenses to Gross Earnings — 

Rail . 96-88% 

Water 

Expenses per train mile $ 3 58 

Expenses per mile of road operated 9, 100 60 

Repairs of locomotives 3,291,941 81 

Repairs of freight cars 2, 515, 302 68 

Repairs of passenger cars 1, 662, 900 50 

Cost of repairs per locomotive 5, 002 95 

Cost of repairs per freight car 107 23 

Cost of repairs per passenger car 2, 309 58 

Freight traffic • 30, 282, 291 61 

Passenger traffic 8, 947, 478 39 

Mails and express 2, 064, 425 95 

Miscellaneous (A/C 103, 104, 105, 108 to 112) 1,067,634 26 

Incidental 844, 795 51 

Total 43, 206, 625 72 

Hire of Equipment— Credit $ 796, 548 19 

Income account — Debit 144, 167 08 

Rentals leased roads— Debit 689,990 18 



LOCOMOTIVE AND CAR EQUIPMENT AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1924 



— 


On hand 

January 

1, 1924 


Added 

during 

year 


Retired 

during 

year 


On hand 

December 

31, 1924 


Locomotives 


672 




28 


644 








Freight — 


499 

14,584 

2,122 

2 

319 

198 

79 

2,155 

1,060 

964 

1,222 

66 

330 




2 

478 

18 


497 


Box 


9 
192 


14,115 


Stock 


2,296 

2 


Poultry 


Refrigerator , 




12 
5 
1 
60 
15 
20 
26 


307 


Eastern heaters 




193 


Potato „ 


119 
11 


197 


Flat 


2,106 


Hart 


1,045 


Coal and coke 


5 
19 


949 


Pulpwood 


1,215 


Tank 


66 


Caboose 




6 


324 










23,600 


355 


643 


23,312 



6059—4 



50 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



( CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

LOCOMOTIVE AND CAR EQUIPMENT AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1923.— Continued 



— 


On hand 

January 

1, 1924 


Added 

during 

year 


Retired 

during 

year 


On hand 

December 

31, 1924 


Passenger — 


25 
2 

13 
4 
9 
2 

9 

2 

15 

64 

53 

165 

45 

109 

3 

20 

92 

24 

21 

32 

3 




1 


24 






2 








13 








4 


( observation, parlor-buffet 




3 


6 






2 


( 'omp. cafe, parlor, sleeping 








Buffet sleeping 






9 


Compartment cars 






2 


Dining cars 






15 


Sleeping cars 




2 

3 
3 


62 


Colonist cars 




52 


First class cars 




162 


Second class cars 




42 


Passenger and baggage cars 




109 


Passenger and mail cars 






3 


Mail and express or baggage 


1 

1 




21 


Baggage cars 


2 


91 


Box baggage cars 


24 


Postal cars 




1 


20 


Refrigerator express cars 




32 


Milk cars 


1 

2 


1 


3 


Stockmen's cars 


2 


Gasoline motor passenger cars 


1 

1 




1 


Gasoline motor passenger trailer 






1 


Hospital cars 








Lunch counter cars 


2 

2 
1 
3 


4 




6 


Photographers cars 




1 


Instruction cars 






2 


Vision test cars 






1 


Stores supply cars .... 




1 


2 


Trailers 


1 


1 


Work— 

Lidgerwoods * 


724 


10 


18 


716 


11 
8 

45 

98 
8 

15 
4 

19 

135 

1,083 

2 

2 

149 

8 

91 
9 

38 

15 
7 
8 
1 
4 
1 
2 
2 
1 
2 
4 
1 
1 
1 

16 




2 


9 


Gas cars 




8 




3 




48 


Flangers 


4 


94 


Ditchers 




8 


Ballast spreaders and trimmers 




1 


14 


Pile drivers 




4 


Steam shovels 




1 

2 

43 


18 


Snow ploughs 




133 


Boarding cars 


90 


1,130 


Engineers cars 


2 


Stores cars 




1 
9 


1 


Auxiliary cars 




140 


Cabin cars and idlers 




8 


Cinder cars 


9 
5 


9 


91 


Road repair cars 


14 


Air dump 




38 


Transfer flats 






15 


Water tanks 




4 


3 


Fire fighting tanks 


4 


12 






1 








4 


Sand blast cars 






1 


Well boring machine cars 






2 








2 


Centrifugal pumps. 






1 




1 
9 




3 


Shop service cars 


1 


12 




1 


Oil tank cars . 






1 








1 


Dump cars 






16 













Note. — The cars shown as "Added during year" opposite the several classes concerned, consist en- 
tirely of cars transferred from other classes, and same are also included in figures shown as "Retired during 
year" opposite the classes from which they were transferred. No new cars were acquired. 
Certified correct: 

C. E. Brooks G. E. Smart 

Chie jof motive power Chief of car equipment 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 51 

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS EMPLOYEES RELIEF AND 
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. 

STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES FROM JANUARY 1 TO 

DECEMBER 31, 1924 

RECEIPTS 

Credit balance on December 31, 1923 $ 103,307 90 

Amount of premiums collected from Canadian National Rail- 
way's pay-lists $ 217, 730 52 

Premiums collected from railway's vouchers 

Contribution from Canadian National Railways 



Cash members not on duty, refunds, etc. 

Premiums from S. and A. vouchers 

Premiums from retired members 

Annual fees 

Examination fees 

Interest on monthly balances and bonds. 



1,612 44 


15,000 00 


1,189 14 


2,945 53 


5,075 09 


1,285 00 


124 00 


5,333 42 



234,342 



15,952 18 



Total receipts 354, 103 04 



EXPENDITURES 

Sick and accident indemnity $ 89,641 17 

Medical and surgical attendance 51 , 253 77 

$ 140,894 94 

Temporary employees' accident fund 23,364 19 

Death and total disability claims 51 , 750 00 

Examination Fees 68 00 



216,077 13 



OPERATING EXPENSES 

Sick and accident fund, temporary employees' accident Fund, 

retired employees, death and total disability fund 20,535 94 . 

236,613 07 

Difference $ 117,489 97 

Less outstanding liabilities 14, 000 00 



Estimated net surplus December 31, 1924 S 103,489 97 



SICK AND ACCIDENT FUND (Regular and Temporary) 

This fund shows a surplus December 31, 1924 65,797 80 

Death and Total Disability fund 

The statement shows an expenditure on account of death and total disability 

claims of 51 , 750 00 

Thiss tatement shows that one hundred and nine deaths and total disability 

claims were assessed and paid during the year 

Ninety eight death claims, due to natural caused, aggregating 48, 500 00 

Ten death claims, due to accidental injuries, aggregating 3,000 00 

51,500 00 
One total disability claim, aggregating ■ 250 00 



$ 51,750 00 
Ten temporary death claims, due to accidental injuries, aggregating 2, 500 00 



$ 54,250 00 



C. B. Trites, W. F. Sears, 

Secretary. Auditor. 



C059— 4^ 



52 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

INTERCOLONIAL AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAYS EM 
PLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND 

STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES DURING THE YEAR ENDED 

DECEMBER 31, 1924 

Balance to the credit of the fund on December 31, 1923 $ 405,236 05 

The contributions made by employees during the year, being one 

and one-half per cent of their monthly salary and wages, were.$ 259, 547 97 

The contributions made by the Railways were 100,000 00 

Amounts received to increase retiring allowances of all retired 
employees receiving less than $30 per month, in order that 
the minimum allowance now paid under the Act, viz, $20, 
might be increased to $30 per month, in accordance with 
vote No. 473, whereby an amount was placed in the estimates 
to supplement retiring allowances payable under the pro- 
visions of the I.C. and P.E.I. Railways Employees' 
Provident fund, including from January 1 to December 31, 

1924 45,832 61 

405,380 58 

Amounts received for refunds, etc 672 60 

Interest accrued (at three per cent) 7, 590 91 

818,880 14 

The amount contributed by the employees is shown to exceed by 

$159, 547.97 the amount contributed by the railways 

By reference to Section 4 of the Provident Fund Act, it will be 
noted that the maximum sum the railways are authorized to 
contribute to the fund in any one year must not exceed$100,000 

The expenditures were: — 

For retiring allowances $ 528, 903 61 

For allowances made to retired employees receiving less than 
$30 per month, to increase the minimum allowance in accord- 
ance with vote No. 473, whereby an amount was placed in the 
estimates to supplement retiring allowances payable under 
the provisions of the I.C. and P.E.I. Railways Employees' 
Provident Fund, including from January 1st to December 

31, 1924 45,832 61 

For contributions refunded in the cases of deceased employees... 12,799 08 

For contributions refunded, which were deducted in error 1,031 81 

For contributions refunded to discharged employees, etc 7,863 74 

Medical examinations for probationers entering the service, etc. . 797 00 

Medical examinations for employees retiring from the service 52 00 

For election expenses 1,035 49 

For salaries and travelling expenses secretary's office and propor- 
tion of salary of Chief Medical Officer, 13 , 894 79 

For stationery, printing, postage, etc 454 07 

612,664 20 

Balance to the credit of the Fund on the 31 December 1924 $ 206,215 94 

It will be noted by the above statement of Receipts and Expendi- 
tures that the amount of contributions received from the 
Railways and from the Employees during the year were $ 405, 380 58 

And the expenditures were 612, 664 20 

Showing that during the year the Expenditures exceeded the 

Receipts. 207,283 62 

The gross surplus, including interest to the credit of the Fund on 

December 31, 1924, was 206, 215 94 

W, U. Appleton, . C. B. Trites, 

Chairman. • Secrctanj. 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 



53 



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT 
RAILWAYS EMPLOYEES' RELIEF AND INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, 
BY THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS DURING THE 
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1924 

Amount of premiums collected from the Canadian National Railways' pay- 
lists $ 217,730 52 

Premiums collected from railways' vouchers 1 , 612 44 

Annual contribution from the Canadian National Railways 15, 000 00 

Total $ 234, 342 96 



C. B. Trites, 
Secretary. 



W. F. Sears, 
Auditor. 



STATEMENT SHOWING MILEAGE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1924 





Main 


Line 


Yard track 

and 

Sidings 


Total 




1st track 


2nd track 


Atlantic Region 


2,209-36 

1,436-40 

604-17 

164-25 

5-30 

162-80 

3-28 

13-96 

39-90* 


46-38 

22-24 

4-89 


. 701-15 

381-45 

167-94 

15-66 

0-15 

72-92 


2,956-89 


Central Region 


1,840-09 


Western Region including Hudson Bay Railway 

Leased lines — Atlantic Region 


777-00 
179-91 


" — Central Region , 




5-45 


" — Western Region 




235-72 






3-28 


Running rights — Atlantic Region 






13-96 


" — Central Region. . . 


38-35* 




78-25 


" — Western Region 


















4,639-42 


111-86 


1,339-27 


6,090-55 



'Running rights over Grand Trunk Railway. 



54 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

THE CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY 

TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT 

The Central Vermont Railway is operated under separate management 
but controlled by the Canadian National Railway Company. 
Mileage operated during 1924 was as follows: — 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 
1st District — 

New London to White River Junction 133 . 97 m ii e s 

Montville to Palmertown 2-52 " 

Fitchville Junction to Fitchville 1 . 64 « 

East Northfield to Brattleboro 10-25 " 

2nd District— 

Brattleboro to South Londonderry 35-44 miles 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

3rd District— 

White River Junction to St. Albans 117-90 miles 

Bethel to Quarries 5 .39 « 

Montpelier Junction to Williamstown 14-03 " 

Barre Junction to Barre 1-44 " 

Burlington to Essex Junction 7-79 " 

Essex Junction to Cambridge Junction ' 25-96 " 

4th District — 

St. Albans to St. Johns 41-14 miles 

Fonda Junction to Rouses Point 18-15 " 

St. Albans to Richford 27-40 " 

Total 493-02 miles 

SUMMARY OF THE YEAR'S OPERATIONS 

Gross receipts $ 8,380,752 39 

Gross expenses 7, 298, 127 43 

Balance 1,082,624 96 

Taxes 229 , 070 18 

Balance 853, 554 78 

Net credit from rentals 9, 162 87 

Balance 862, 717 65 

Hire of equipment — Dr. balance 404, 355 91 

Balance 458,361 74 

Interest on securities held by the company 3,000 00 

Balance 461,361 74 

Fixed charges 1,358,424 25 

• Net result (deficit) 897,062 51 

The directors' report to the shareholders, calls attention to the fact that 
the past year has been eventful and progressive, eventful in the physical improve- 
ment to the property and progressive by reason of consequent economy in opera- 
tion. The improvements to the property are due to the co-operative interest 
in the future and potential value of the property, taken by the Canadian National 
Railways. The economy in operation is due to appreciation of and responsive 
co-operation by officials and employees of the company to the value of the 
improvements made. These two elements working together have produced a 
result far in excess of the estimate placed on the value of the improvements 
originally mentioned in the budget and it is confidently expected that, with 
continued progress toward completion of the five year program of improvements 
to the property, the ratio of saving to expenditure will continually increase and 
there will then result a self-sustaining and profitable property. 



CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY 55 

The result of operation for year 1924 shows a loss of $897,062.51, as against 
a loss for year 1923 of $1,081,675.75, an improvement of $184,613.24. 

While the Railway Operating Revenues decreased $247,000 as compared 
with last year, yet the Railway Operating Expenses decreased $378,000, in 
spite of an increase in Maintenance of Way of $256,000 above normal, caused 
by large expenditures for rail, bridges, shops and enginehouses. 

The hire of freight cars shows a decrease of $135,904.07. Interest charges 
show increase of $181,000 caused by advances from Canadian National Rail- 
ways in connection with 1923 and 1924 Budget, by note of $700,000 to U.S. 
Government, and also by purchase of new equipment. 

The board records appreciatively the faithful and efficient services of 
Director E. J. Chamberlin and Superintendent John E. Maun who died during 
the year. 

INCOME ACCOUNT 

Operating Income — 

Railway operating revenues $ 8, 380, 752 39 

Railway operating expenses 7, 298, 127 43 

Net revenue from railway operations % 1,082,624 96 

Railway tax accruals 229, 070 18 

Lncollectible railway revenue 1, 586 61 

230,656 79 

Total operating income $ 851,968 17 

Non-Operating Income — 

Rent from locomotives 7, 326 94 

Rent from passenger train cars 71, 748 65 

Rent from work equipment 212 57 

Joint facility rent income 30,445 94 

Income from lease of road ' 16,834 64 

Miscellaneous rent income 4, 250 08 

Income from unfunded securities and accounts 26, 624 67 

Income from funded securities and accounts 3,000 00 

Miscellaneous income 1, 143 83 

Total non-operating income ■ $ 161,587 32 

Gross income I 1,013,555 49 

Deductions from Gross Income — 

Hire of freight cars— Dr. balance $ 329, 191 35 

Rent for locomotives 70, 038 72 

Rent for passenger train cars 84, 024 36 

Rent for work equipment 389 64 

Joint facility rents 6, 969 99 

Miscellaneous rents 28, 813 49 

Rent for leased roads 216,917 01 

Interest on funded debt 1,126,269 09 

Interest on unfunded debt 8,411 69 

Amortization of discount on funded debt 15, 238 15 

Miscellaneous income charges 24,354 51 

Total deductions from gross income $ 1,910,618 00 

Net deficit S 897,062 51 



PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 

Net deficit at December 31, 1923 $ 3,367,680 80 

Miscellaneous adjustment debit 787 96 

Deficit $ 3,368,468 76 

Deficit in income account for the year 897,062 51 

Depreciation on equipment retire o- during the year from date of purchase 

to June 30, 1907 27,322 80 

Net deficit at December 31, 1924 $ 4,292,854 07 



56 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

BALANCE SHEET, DECEMBER 31, 1924 

Assets 
Investments — 

Investment in road and equipment. . .$21,300,529 93 
Improvements on leased railway pro- 
perty 474,823 28 



Investments in affiliated companies — 

Stocks $ 4,973,914 92 

Advances 3,678,463 65 



Other investments — 

Bonds $ 75,000 00 

Miscellaneous 144 70 



$21,775,353 21 



!, 652, 378 57 



75,144 70 



Total investments $30,502,876 48 

Current Assets — 

Cash $ 519, 922 43 

Special deposits 19, 402 00 

Loans and bills receivable 5, 181 26 

Traffic and car service balances receivable 214, 066 60 

Net balance receivable from agents and conductors. . . 87,829 85 

Miscellaneous accounts receivable 530, 463 14 

Material and supplies 626, 389 37 

Interest and dividends receivable 250 00 

Other current assets 136, 802 68 



Total current assets 2, 140, 307 33 

Deferred Assets — 

Working fund advances $ 2,763 43 



Total deferred assets 2, 763 43 

Unadjusted Debits — 

Rents and insurance premiums paid in advance $ 6,458 03 

Discount on funded debt 84,512 47 

Other unadjusted debits 90, 083 48 

Securities issued or assumed — Unpledged 389,400 00 

Securities issued or assumed — Pledged 369, 000 00 



Total unadjusted debits $ 939,453 



Grand total $33, 585,401 23 



$ 3,000,000 00 



58,560 00 



Liabilities 
Stock— 

Capital stock $ 3,000,000 00 

Issued 2, 984, 600 00 

Scrip 15,400 00 

Governmental Giants — 

Grants in aid of construction 58, 560 00 

Long-Term Debt — 

Funded debt unmatured — 

Refunding Mortgage 5% Gold Bonds $13,595,700 00 

Equipment Trust Notes "E" 509,000 00 

Equipment Trust Notes "F" 767,000 00 

U. S. Government Note 128,000 00 

U. S. Government Note 26,000 00 

U. S. Government Note 700, 000 00 

Montreal and Province Line Ry . 4% Bonds 200, 000 00 

Non-negotiable debt to affiliated companies — 

Notes 8, 041 , 905 52 

Open accounts 8, 208,418 02 

Total long-term debt 32, 176,023 54 



CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY 57 

BALANCE SHEET, DECEMBER 31, 1924— Concluded 

Current Liabilities — 

Loans and bills payable $ 75, 000 00 

Traffic and car service balances payable 336,352 07 

Audited accounts and wages payable 694, 007 02 

Miscellaneous accounts payable 2, 465 51 

Interest matured unpaid 17, 677 00 

Funded debt matured unpaid 10,300 00 

Unmatured interest accrued 139,440 72 

Other current liabilities 10, 886 81 

Total current liabilities 1,286, 129 13 

Deferred Liabilities — 

Other deferred liabilities, miscelfaneous $ 226,265 87 

Total deferred liabilities 226,265 87 

Unadjusted Credits — 

Accrued depreciation — Road $ 161 , 032 42 

Accrued depreciation — Equipment 666, 262 92 

Tax liabilities 151,204 46 

Other unadjusted credits 152, 776 96 

Total unadjusted credits. 1,131,276 76 

Profit and Loss Balance (Deficit) 4,292,854 07 

Grand total $33,585,401 23 



COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF EARNINGS, EXPENDITURES AND RESULT 

OF OPERATION 

Revenues 

Year ended Year ended 

* Dec. 31, 1924 Dec. 31, 1923 

Freight $ 6,272,346 18 $ 6,345,777 50 

Passenger 1,241,838 78 1,307,523 58 

Mail and express 334, 705 45 333, 828 92 

Other revenue from transportation 393,848 23 49z, 765 73 

Revenue from operations other than transportation 122, 390 50 131 , 403 52 

Dining and buffet service 15,623 25 16,681 16 

Total operating revenues S 8, 380, 752 39 $ 8, 627, 980 41 

Expenses 

Maintenance of way and structures $ 1,595,225 54 $ 1,339,133 06 

Maintenance of equipment 1,381,826 69 1,487,216 82 

Traffic 166,626 10 160,463 28 

Transportation 3,863,358 95 4,430,719 04 

Miscellaneous operations 18,473 48 19,239 68 

General 282,028 97 249,879 61 

Transportation for investment— Cr 9,412 30 9 , 570 69 

Total operating expenses $ 7.298,127 43 $ 7,677,080 80 

Balance $ 1,082,624 96 $ 950,899 61 

Net Dr. from rentals, etc *9,162 87 37,038 02 

Balance $ 1,091,787 83 $ 913,861 59 

Taxes 229,070 18 243,114 36 

Balance $ 862,717 65 $ 670,747 23 

Hire of equipment— Dr. balance 404,355 91 578,614 65 

Balance $ 458,36174 $ 92,132 58 

Extra Receipts 

Interest on securities held by the company, etc $ 3,000 00 S 3,000 00 

Total $ 461,36174 $ 95,132 58 

Fixed charges 1, 358,424 25 1, 176,808 33 

Net result t$ 897,062 51 t$l,081,675 75 

♦Credit. fDeficit. 



58 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRAIN EARNINGS 
PER TON AND PER PASSENGER MILE 

Freight 

Year ended Year ended 

Dec. 31, 1924 Dec. 31, 1923 

Revenue train miles 985,861 1,115,200 

Freight earnings $ 6,272,346.18 $ 6,345,777.50 

Earnings per freight train mile $ 6.36 $ 5. 69 

Tons carried 4,383,925 4,568,926 

Tons carried one mile 430,301,335 418,834,420 

Earnings per ton mile $ -0146 $ -0152 

Passenger 

Year ended Year ended 

Dec. 31, 1924 Dec. 31, 1925 

Revenue train miles 945,370 969,405 

Passenger earnings $ 1 , 872, 718 51 $ 1 , 922, 050 09 

Earnings per passenger train mile $ 1 89 $ 1 98 

Passengers carried 891, 143 1,013,722 

Passengers carried one mile 34,568,594 35,862,987 

Earnings per passenger per mile $ -0359 $ -0365 

Earnings from express and mails are included in passenger train earnings. 
Earnings per passenger mile do not include express and mail earnings. 

FREIGHT TRANSPORTED 

Freight carried in 1924 amounted to 4,383,925 tons contrasted with 
4,508,926 tons in 1923. This was made up of the following classes of merchandise 
given in percentages: — 



Products of agriculture 

Products of animals 

Products of mines 

Products of forests 

Manufactures and miscellaneous. 
L. C. L. freight 

Total traffic 



Freight 

Passenger 

Mixed 

Special 

Switching 

Total revenue miles. 
Non-revenue miles. . 

Total... 



Freight 

Passenger 

Mixed 

Special 

Total revenue miles. 
Non-revenue miles. . 

Total... 



Passenger 

Freight 

Total. 



1923 
20-643 


1924 

21-235 


5-361 


5-486 


24-838 


21-268 


13-724 


14-443 


28-597 


30-196 


6-837 


7-372 






100000 


100 000 






ENGINE MILEAGE 

Year ended Year ended 
Dec. 31, 1924 Dec. 31, 1923 
1,022,309 1.145.085 


950,253 


978,041 


48,891 


69,138 


567 


290 


612,458 


691,957 






2,634,478 


2,884,511 


56,816 


54,352 






2,691,294 


2,938,863 






TRAIN MILEAGE 

Year ended Year ended 
Dec. 31, 1924 Dec. 31, 1923 
947,450 1.060.523 


980,233 


956,023 


47, 758 


66,683 


567 


216 






1,976,008 


2,083,445 


37,508 


44,523 






2,013,516 


2,127,968 






CAR MILEAGE 

Year ended Year ended 
Dec. 31, i924 Dec. 31, 1923 
5,583,972 4,456,641 


33,409,331 


34,345,498 


38,993,303 


38,802,139 







CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY 59 

EQUIPMENT 



Locomotives — 

Passenger 

Freight 

Switching 

Total 

Passenger Cars — 

Coach 

Motor coach 

Parlor 

Dining 

Combination passenger and baggage 

Baggage, mail and express 

Milk 

Total 

Freight and Work Cars — 
Freight — 

Box 1 , 855 1 , 910 

Stock 6 3 

Coal 

Flat 

Caboose 

Work- 
Cinder 

Wreck 

Sno wplo ws 

Construction 

Scraper 

Official 

Store 

Total 



On hand 


On hand 


Jan. 1, 


Jan. 1, 


1924 


1925 


26 


25 


56 


53 


4 


3 


86 


81 


46 


44 




2 


2 




1 


1 


10 


10 


24 


20 


19 


17 


102 


94 



200 


200 


338 


308 


43 


43 


40 


40 


20 


23 


8 


8 


67 


74 


15 


15 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2,594 


2,626 



60 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS (INCLUDING 
CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY) 

1. Income Account Canadian National Railways including Central Vermont 

Railway for years ending December 31, 1924 and 1923. 

2. Income Account Canadian National Railway Lines in Canada for years 

ending December 31, 1924 and 1923. 

3. Income Account Canadian National Railway Lines in United States for 

years ending December 31, 1924 and 1923. 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS (INCLUDING CENTRAL 

VERMONT) 

Income Account Yeaks Ending Decembek 31, 1924 and 1923 

GROSS OPERATING REVENUE 

1924 1923 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 201,224,493 13 $ 214,787,207 46 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States.. 34,363,689 42 38,348,280 15 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 235,588,182 55 $ 253,135,487 61 

Central Vermont Railway 8,380,752 39 8,627,980 41 

Total $ 243,968,934 94 $ 261,763,468 02 



GROSS OPERATING EXPENSES 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. $ 189,460,403 90 $ 202,936,658 84 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States. . 28,883,527 17 29,768,179 69 

Total Canadian National Railways 2 18 , 343 , 93 1 07 232 , 704 , 838 53 

Central Vermont Railway 7,298, 127 43 7,677,080 80 

Total $ 225,642,058 50 $ 240,381,919 33 



NET REVENUE FROM RAILWAY OPERATIONS 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 11,764,089 23 $ 11,850,548 62 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States. . 5,480, 162 25 8, 580, 100 46 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 17,244,25148 $ 20,430,649 08 

Central Vermont Railway 1,082,624 96 950,899 61 

Total f 18,326,876 44 $ 21,381,548 69 



TAX ACCRUALS, UNCOLLECTIBLE REVENUES AND MISCELLANEOUS 

OPERATIONS 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 3,471, 164 64 $ 2,895,493 42 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States.. 1,538,069 82 1,261,916 85 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 5,009,234 46 $ 4, 157,410 27 

Central Vermont Railway 230, 656 79 243, 696 02 

Total $ 5,239,89125 $ 4,401,106 29 



INCOME STATEMENT 61 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS (INCLUDING CENTRAL 

VERMONT) 

TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 8,292,924 59 $ 8,955,055 20 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States.. 3,942,092 43 7,318,183 61 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 12,235,017 02 $ 16,273,238 81 

Central Vermont Railway 851,968 17 707,203 59 

Total $ 13,086,985 19 $ 16,980,442 40 



NON-OPERATING INCOME OR CHARGES NET 

1924 1923 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 9,298, 130 99 $ 6,350,039 31 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States.. 6,760,820 09 9,121,629 11 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 2,537,310 90 $ 2,771,589 80 

Central Vermont Railway 622,761 59 843, 976 95 

Total $ 1,914,549 31 $ 3,615,566 75 



TOTAL INCOME OR DEFICIT BEFORE FIXED CHARGES 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 17,591,055 58 $ 15,305,094 51 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States.. 2,818,727 66 1,803,445 50 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 14,772,327 92 $ 13,501,649 01 

Central Vermont Railway 229,206 58 136,773 36 

Total , $ 15,001,534 50 $ 13,364,875 65 



FIXED CHARGES 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada — 

Interest due Public $ 37,459,173 25 $ 34,125,745 92 

Interest due Government 31,271,043 00 30,157,943 67 

$ 68,730,216 25 $ 64,283,689 59 
Canadian National Railways Lines in United States — 

Interest due Public. 902, 530 89 915, 634 36 

Canadian National Railways $ 69,632,747 14 $ 65,199,323 95 

Central Vermont Railway, due Public 538 , 922 04 498 , 287 61 

Central Vermont Railway, due Canadian National 

Railways 587,347 05 446,614 78 

$ 1,126,269 09 $ 944,902 39 

Total C.N. R. and C.V. Ry $ 70,759,016 23 $ 66,144,226 34 



TOTAL DEFICIT 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 51, 139, 160 67 $ 48, 978, 595 08 

Canadian National Railways Lines in United States.. 3,721,258 55 2,719,079 86 

Total Canadian National Railways $ 54, 860, 419 22 $ 51, 697, 674 94 

Central Vermont Railway 897,062 51 1,081,675 75 

Total Deficit $ 55,757,48173 % 52,779,350 69 



Note. — In these statements the 1923 figures have been re-stated so as to afford a better comparison 
with the accounting practices in effect in 1924. The net result, however, is not affected. 



62 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS— LINES IN CANADA 

Income Account Years Ending December 31, 1924 and 1923 
gross operating revenue 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 1924 1923 

Railway in Canada) $ 80,402, 154 45 $ 89,749,404 97 

Canadian Northern Railway System 58,100,383 07 60,216,771 82 

Canadian Government Railways 43,206, 625 72 44, 809, 781 66 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 19,515,329 89 20,011,249 01 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada $ 201,224,493 13 $ 214,787,207 46 

GROSS OPERATING EXPENSES 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 

Railway in Canada) $ 66,326,773 44 $ 72,075,700 29 

Canadian Northern Railway System 59,012,363 64 62,810,576 31 

Canadian Government Railways 41,858,398 43 44,962,554 84 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 22,262,868 39 23,087,827 40 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. . . .$ 189,460,403 90 202,936,658 84 

NET REVENUE OR DEFICIT FROM RAILWAY OPERATIONS 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 

Railway in Canada) $ 14,075,38101 $ 17,673,704 68 

Canadian Northern Railway System 911,980 57 2,593,804 49 

Canadian Government Railways 1,348,227 29 152,773 18 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 2,747,538 50 3,076,578 39 

• 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. . . .$ 11, 764,089 23 $ 11,850. 548 62 

TAX ACCRUALS, UNCOLLECTIBLE REVENUES AND MISCELLANEOUS 

OPERATIONS 
Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 

Railwav in Canada) $ 1,686,130 15 $ 1,337,608 37 

Canadian Northern Railway System 1 , 083 , 51 1 57 988 , 414 70 

Canadian Government Railways 140, 744 59 59, 186 12 

Grend Trunk Pacific Railway 560, 778 33 510, 284 23 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. . . .$ 3,471, 164 64 $ 2,895,493 42 

TOTAL OPERATING INCOME OR DEFICIT 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 

Railway in Canada) $ 12,389,250 86 $ 16,336,095 31 

Canadian Northern Railway System 1,995,492 14 3,582,219 19 

Canadian Government Railways 1,207,482 70 211,959 SO 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 3,308,316 83 3,586,862 62 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada....! 8,292,924 59 $ 8,955,055 20 

NON-OPERATING INCOME OR CHARGES NET 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 1924 1923 

Railway in Canada) $ 5,310,520 02 $ 2,857,915 34 

Canadian Northern Railway System 1,545,671 30 1,844,648 29 

Canadian Government Railways 103, 135 54 3,983 96 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 2,338,804 13 1,651,459 64 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. ...$ 9,298, 130 99 $ 6,350,039 31 

TOTAL INCOME OR DEFICIT BEFORE FIXED CHARGES 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 

Railwav in Canada) $ 17,699,770 88 $ 19,194,01165 

Canadian Northern Railway System 449,820 84 1,737,570 90 

Canadian Government Railways 1,310, 618 24 215,943 26 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 969,512 70 1,935,402 98 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. . . .$ 17,591,055 58 $ 15,305,094 51 



INCOME STATEMENT 63 

FIXED CHARGES 



Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 
Railway in Canada) — 

Interest due the Public $ 17,841,521 04 

Interest due the Government 6,673,459 11 

$ 24,514,980 15 

Canadian Northern Railway System- 
Interest due the Public. 15, 188,695 13 

Interest due the Government 19,528,454 19 



$ 34,717,149 32 



% 


14,179,129 26 
5,999,898 75 


% 


20,179,028 01 


15,517,659 58 
18,701,675 52 


$ 


34,219,335 10 



Grand Trunk Pacific Railway — 

Interest due the Public 4,428,957 08 4,428,957 08 

Interest due the Government 2,203,724 37 2,823,801 42 

Interest on Receivers' Certificates 2,865,405 33 2,632,567 98 



$ 9,498,086 78 $ 9,885,326 48 



Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada. . . .$ 68,730,216 25 $ 64,283,689 59 



TOTAL DEFICIT 

Canadian National Railways (including Grand Trunk 

Railway in Canada) % 6, 815, 209,27 % 985,016 36 

Canadian Northern Railway System 35, 166,970 16 35,956,906 00 

Canadian Government Railways 1,310,618 24 215,943 26 

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 10, 467,599 48 11, 820,729 46 

Canadian National Railways Lines in Canada % 51, 139, 160 67 % 48,978,595 08 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS— LINES IN THE UNITED 

STATES 

Income Account — Years Ending December 31, 1924 and 1923 
* gross operating revenue 

1924 1923 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 2,595,230 08 $ 3,515,000 00 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 29,591,984 53 32,471,522 74 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 2, 176,474 81 2,361,757 41 

Canadian National Railways in United States. . . .$ 34,363,689 42 $ 38,348,280 15 

GROSS OPERATING EXPENSES 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 3,077,805 13 $ 4,006,702 84 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 23,881,316 76 23,679,714 70 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 1,924,405 28 2,081,762 15 

Canadian-National Railways in United States . . . . S 28 , 883 , 527 17 $ 29 , 768 , 179 69 

NET REVENUE OR DEFICIT FROM RAILWAY OPERATIONS 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 482,575 05 % 491,702 84 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 5,710,667 77 8,791,808 04 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 252,069 53 279,995 26 

Canadian National Railways in United States. . . .$ 5,480, 162 25 $ 8, 580, 100 46 

TAX ACCRUALS, UNCOLLECTIBLE REVENUES AND MISCELLANEOUS 

OPERATIONS 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England % 215, 088 62 $ 196, 809 00 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 1,215,177 96 , 946,068 69 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 107,803 24 119,039 16 

Canadian National Railways in United States. . . .% 1,538,069 82 $ 1,261,916 85 



64 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

TOTAL OPERATING INCOME OR DEFICIT 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 697,663 67 $ 688,511 84 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 4,495,489 81 7,845, 739 35 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 144,266 29 160,956 10 

Canadian National Railways in United States.... $ 3,942,092 43 $ 7,318,183 61 



NON-OPERATING INCOME OR CHARGES NET 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 1,244,895 65 $ 1, 874, 456 34 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 5, 594, 938 06 7, 174, 471 63 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 79,013 62 72,701 14 

Canadian National Railways in United States. . . .$ 6, 760,820 09 $ 9, 121 , 629 11 



TOTAL INCOME OR DEFICIT BEFORE FIXED CHARGES 

1924 1923 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 1, 942, 559 32 $ 2,562,968 18 

Grend Trunk Western Lines 1,099,448 25 671,267 72 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 223, 279 91 88,254 96 



Canadian National Railways in United States....$ 2,818,727 66 % 1,803,445 50 



FIXED CHARGES 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England — 

Interest due the Public $ . 

Interest due the Government 



Grand Trunk Western Lines — 

Interest due the Public $ 622,330 89 $ 635,114 64 

Interest due the Government 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific — 

Interest due the Public $ 280,200 00 $ 280,519 72 

Interest due the Government 



Canadian National Railways in United States. . . .$ 902, 530 89 $ 915, 634 



TOTAL DEFICIT 

Grand Trunk Lines in New England $ 1 , 942, 559 32 $ 2, 562, 968 18 

Grand Trunk Western Lines 1,721,779 14 36, 153 08 

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway 56,920 09 192, 264 76 



Canadian National Railways in United States. ... $ 3,721,258 55 % 2, 719, 079 86 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 



65 



REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTANT. 

Total Expenditure and Eevenue of the Department of Railways and Canals 
prior to and since Confederation to March 31, 1925 



Grand total expenditure 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 
1,298,529,333 59 


Expenditure on railways 


926,941,230 89 
22,165,875 13 
78,785,471 09 

224,607,335 62 
46,029,420 86 




" Quebec bridge 




" Railway subsidies 




" Canals 




" Miscellaneous 








Total expenditure 




1,298,529,333 59 




681,393,482 85 

491,797,310 15 

46,553,069 50 

78,785,471 09 




Classification of expenditure in general — 

Capital account 




Revenue account 




Income account 




Consolidated Fund— railway subsidies 








Total expenditure 




1,298,529,333 59 




474,271,512 05 

7,753,013 24 

444,916 705 60 




Classification of expenditure in detail — 
Railways — 




Income 




Revenue 






926,941,230 89 


Quebec Bridge — 

Capital 


21,706,664 49 
459,210 64 


Income 






22,165,875 13 
78,785,471 09 


Railway subsidies 










Total expenditure on railways 


1,027,892,577 11 


Canals — 

Capital 


163,787,854 94 
14,015,587 18 
26,021,511 72 
20,782,381 78 




Income 




Revenue, staff 




Revenue, repairs 


224,607,335 62 






Miscellaneous expenditure — 

Capital 


21,627,451 37 

24,325,258 44 

76,711 05 




Income 






46,029,420 86 












Grand total expenditure 


1,298,529,333 59 



General Summary of the Expenditure and Eevenue for Fiscal Year ending 



March 31, 1925 



Grand total expenditure to March 31, 1925. 

This expenditure is divided as follows: — 

Railways, including Quebec bridge — 

Canals 

General expenditure 



Total expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1925- 
This expenditure is divided as follows: — 

Railways 

Canals 

General expenditure 



REVENUE RECEIVED 

Grand total of revenue received from July 1, 1867 to March 31, 
1925— 

Railways 

Canals 



Revenue received from Canals during fiscal year. 



cts. 



1,027,892,577 11 

224,607,335 62 

46,029,420 86 



325,238 38 

13,084,330 37 

3,308,971 56 



391,866,392 09 
21,636,577 72 



$ cts. 
1,298,529,333 59 



1,298,529,333 59 



16,718,540 31 



413,502,969 81 



913,075 27 



6059—5 



66 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
REVENUE. 



General Statement of the Revenue received during the Year ending 

March 31, 1925. 



Canals — 

Welland canal 

Welland canal, Port Colborne elevator 

Welland ship canal 

Beauharnois canal 

Soulanges canal 

Cornwall canal 

Williamsburg canal 

Lachine canal 

Chambly canal 

Carillon and Grenville canal 

St. Anne's lock 

Chats Falls canal 

Rideau canal 

St. Peters canal 

Murray canal 

Trent canal 

Sault Ste-Marie canal 

Total 



$ cts. 

68,706 19 

362,596 97 

9,893 43 

15,026 55 

3,680 60 

25,336 18 

1,753 50 

256,305 67 

959 86 

865 00 

572 72 

1 00 

13,934 54 

31 00 

254 00 

153,066 06 

92 00 



913,075 27 



General Statement of Expenditure during the Year ending March 31, 1925 



Total expenditure 

Expenditure chargeable to railways . 

Expenditure chargeable to canals 

General expenditure 



Total expenditure . 



Classification of expenditure in general — 

Capital account 

Income account 

Revenue account 



Total expenditure. 



Classification of expenditure by accounts- 
Railways — 

Capital expenditure 

Income expenditure, general 

Canals — 

Capital expenditure 

Income expenditure 

Income expenditure, general 



Revenue expenditure, staff 

Revenue expenditure, staff, general. 



Revenue expenditure, repairs 

Revenue expenditure, repairs, general. 



General expenditure, capital account. 
General expenditure, income account. 

Total expenditure 



cts. 



325,238 38 

13,084,330 37 

3,308,971 56 



10,516,856 06 
4,196,047 40 
2,005,636 



445,955 15 
12,835 68 



959,516 48 
125,749 80 



853,076 17 
67,294 40 



$ cts. 

16,718,540 31 



16,718,540 31 



16,718,540 31 



37,499 37 
362,737 75 

10,619,902 69 

458,790 83 



1,085,266 28 



920,370 57 

65,547 26 

3,374,518 8£ 



16,718,540 31 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 
Principal Expenditures during the fiscal year. 



67 



Railway Commission, maintenance 

Railway Commission, statute 

Surveys and Inspections, railways 

Railway Grade Crossing Fund 

Canada Highways Act, Chapter 54, 1919 

Canada Highways Commission 

Retirement Act, 1920, Superannuation No. 4 

Vote 379, St. Lawrence Ship Canal, Surveys and Investigations 

Workmen's Compensation Act 

Canadian Government Rys, to supplement pension allowance... 

Canadian Government Railways, capital 

St. Lawrence ship canal 

Welland ship canal 

Surveys and Inspections, canals 

Canals expenditure 

Miscellaneous expenditure 



$ cts. 

212,411 23 

54,387 71 

46,614 33 

39,436 49 

2,925,163 92 
38,374 73 
29,008 46 
57,504 24 
266,889 52 
45,832 61 
39,683 41 
40,631 56 

9,909,636 95 
12,835 68 

2,928,181 98 
151,314 31 



16,718,540 31 



Expenditure on Government and other Bailways for fiscal year ending 

March 31, 1925 



Capital 



Income 



Total 



Intercolonial Railway 

National Transcontinental Railway. 

Hudson Bay Railway 

Miscellaneous Suspense 



Total. 



Railway Commission, maintenance 

Railway Commission, statutory 

Surveys and inspections 

Railway Grade Crossing Fund 

Governor General's cars 

Hudson Bay Railway — Port Nelson terminals. 



Total 

Grand total of railways . 



Miscellaneous 

Canada Highways Act, chapter 54, 1919 

Retirement Act, 1920, Superannuation No. 4 

Workmen's Compensation Act, Chap. 15, Statutes of Canada, 
1918 & 

Canada Highways Commission 

Printing and stationery, Outside Service 

Canadian Government Railways — To supplement pension 
allowance 

Canadian Northern Railway stock— Statutory 

Miscellaneous railway equipment 

Vote 358 — Lachine Canal — Refund of taxes paid by Andrew 
Baile and Andrew Baile, Ltd 

Vote 479 — St. Lawrence Ship Canal — Surveys and investiga- 
tions and Canadian National Advisory Committee 



$ cts. 

42,894 91 

82,692 34 

58,848 38 

3,862 40 



cts 



89,688 41 



212,411 23 

54,387 71 

46,614 33 

39,436 49 

9,887 99 



2, 184 04 



2, 184 04 



362,737 75 



87,499 87 



362,737 75 



$ cts. 

42,894 91 

82,692 84 

68,848 88 

3,862 40 



39,683 41 



212,411 23 

54,387 71 

46,614 33 

39,436 49 

9,887 99 

2, 184 04 



364,921 79 



325,238 38 



,925,163 92 
29,008 46 

266,889 52 

38,374 73 

4,589 70 

45,832 61 



10 

66,547 86 



7,155 64 
57,504 24 



2,925,163 92 
29,008 46 

266,889 52 

38,374 73 

4,589 70 

45,832 61 
10 

65,547 36 

7,155 64 
57,504 24 



65,547 



3,374,518 82 



3,308,971 56 



6059—51 



68 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Expenditure on Canals for Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1925 



Name of Canal 


Chargeable to 


Chargeable to Revenue 


Total 


Capital 


Income 


Staff 


Repairs 


Carillon and Grenville 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 

4,710 61 
28,734 08 


$ cts. 

27,783 01 

43,610 39 

95,379 85 

129,423 68 

7,720 72 
70,778 25 

5,034 21 


$ cts. 

21,261 17 

50,462 20 

72,863 24 

178,763 23 

5,942 06 

104,683 28 

5,987 83 


$ cts. 
53,754 79 






122,806 67 






168,243 09 






54,337 80 


362,524 71 






13,662 78 






7,439 26 


182,900 79 




100,000 00 


111,022 04 


St. Lawrence river canals 


43,776 43 


43,776 43 


St. Lawrence ship canal 


40,631 56 






40,631 56 


St. Ours 




4,780 47 

49,813 66 

5,452 34 

38,297 91 

112,840 80 

324,927 27 


4,676 24 

74,385 78 

341 72 

33,504 71 

76,096 84 

191,470 41 


9,456 71 






39,739 75 
45,362 06 


163,939 19 


St. Peters 




51,156 12 


Sault Ste. Marie 




71,802 62 


Trent . . 


143,957 44 

425,676 74 

9,909,636 95 


118,003 41 
103,851 75 


450,898 49 


Welland 


1,045,926 17 


Welland ship 


9,909,636 95 


Williamsburg 




43,673 92 


32,637 46 


76,311 38 












10,619,902 69 


445,955 15 


959,516 48 


853,076 17 


12,878,450 49 








29,415 44 


20,270 43 
27,623 48 


49,685 87 


Dredge vessels, Rideau canal 






27,623 48 








59,526 50 


59,526 50 


Surveys and inspections 




12,835 68 




12,835 68 


Maintenance 




27,323 44 




27,323 44 


Hungry Bay and St. Barbe dykes. 






19,400 49 


19,400 49 


Miscellaneous 
dependents of deceased employee 


s 




4,059 48 
5,424 94 


4,059 48 










5,424 94 
















12,835 68 


125,749 80 


67,294 40 


205,879 88 








Grand total 


10,619,902 69 


458,790 83 


1,085,266 28 


920,370 57 


13,084,330 37 







RECAPITULATION OF EXPENDITURE 



Capital 



Income 



Revenue 



Total 



Expenditure on railways 

Expenditure on canals 

Miscellaneous expenditure, general 



$ cts. 

87,499 S7 

10,619,902 69 

65,547 26 



$ cts. 

362,737 75 

458,790 83 

3,374,518 82 



$ cts. 



2,005,636 85 



% cts. 

325,238 38 

13,084,330 37 

3,308,971 56 



10,516,856 06 



4,196,047 40 



2,005,636 85 



16,718,540 31 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 
Expenditure on Canals to March 31, 1925 

CAPITAL ACCOUNT 



69 



— 


Previous Years 


1924-25 


Total 


Beauharnois 


$ cts. 

1,636,029 29 
4,191,756 51 

780,996 52 
7,246,304 21 

382,391 46 

14,132,684 80 

75,906 71 

298,176 11 
1,248,946 71 
4,214,263 99 
4,935,809 42 
7,904,044 53 
1,170,215 63 

1,995,142 87 

483,830 20 

1,039,895 65 

95, 145 74 

127,228 56 

648,547 14 

489,599 23 

19,175,802 29 

29,482,820 89 

40,862,455 82 

1,334,551 80 

877,090 57 

6,143,468 11 

2,159,880 80 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 
1,636,029 29 


Carillon and Grenville 




4,191,756 51 


Chambly 




780,996 52 


Cornwall 




7,246,304 21 


Culbute lock and dam 




382,391 46 


Lachine 




14,132,684 80 


Lake St. Francis 




75,906 71 


Lake St. Louis 




298,176 11 


Murray 




1,248,946 71 


Rideau 




4,214,263 99 


Sault Ste Marie 




4,935,809 42 


Soulanges 




7,904,044 53 


St. Anne's lock 


100,000 00 


1,270,215 63 


St. Lawrence river canals — 

North channel 


w 

1,995,142 87 


River reaches 




483,830 20 


Galops channel 




1,039,895 65 


St. Lawrence ship canal 


40,631 56 


135,777 30 


St. Ours 


127,228 56 


St. Peter's 




648,547 14 


Tay 




489,599 23 


Trent 


143,957 44 

425,676 74 

9,909,636 95 


19,319,759 73 


Welland 


29,908,497 63 


Welland ship 


50,772,092 77 




1,334,551 80 


Farran's Point 




877,090 57 


Galops 




6,143,468 11 


Rapide Plat 




2,159,880 80 








Total 


153,132,985 56 
34,966 69 


10,619,902 69 


163,752,888 25 




34,966 69 










153,167,952 25 


10,619,902 69 


163,787,854 94 







INCOME ACCOUNT 



— 


Previous Years 


1924-25 


Total 


Baie Verte 


$ cts. 

44,387 53 

265,810 84 

456,809 11 

860,861 46 

637,119 09 

60,923 37 

1,832,835 98 

27,028 08 

101,457 76 

707,426 29 

320,974 77 

454,204 71 

118,018 13 

128,298 11 

178,366 58 

736,130 99 

748 65 

2,206,440 49 

3,056,822 42 

396, 175 43 


$ cts. 


$ Ct8. 

44,387 53 


Beauharnois , 




265,810 84 


Carillon and Grenville 


4,710 61 

28,734 08 


461,519 72 


Chambly 


889,595 54 


Cornwall 


637,119 09 


Culbute lock and dam 




60,923 37 


Lachine 


54,337 80 


1,887,173 78 


Lake St. Francis 


27,028 OS 


Murray 




101,457 76 


Rideau 


7,439 26 


714,865 55 


Sault Ste. Marie 


320,974 77 


Soulanges 


39,739 75 


493,944 46 


St. Anne's lock 


118,018 13 


St. Lawrence river canals 


43,776 43 


172,074 54 


St. Ours 


178,366 58 


St. Peter's 


45,362 06 


781,493 05 


Tav 


748 65 


Trent 


118,003 41 
103,851 75 


2,324,443 90 


Welland 


3,160,674 17 


Williamsburg 


396, 175 43 








Total 


12,590,839 79 
965,956 56 


445,955 15 
12,835 68 


13,036,794 94 


Canals general 


978,792 24 






Grand total 


13,556,796 35 


458,790 83 


14,015,587 18 







70 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
REVENUE ACCOUNT— STAFF 



— 


Previous Years 


1924-25 


Total 


Beauharnoia 


$ cts. 

649,574 89 

1,018,538 91 

1,277,605 28 

2,254,195 59 

11,507 48 

3,568,865 15 

189,969 08 

2,232,015 44 

658,040 93 

835,550 92 

157,215 67 

153,779 57 

154,184 32 

1,250,899 98 

6,683,291 01 

944,966 63 


% cts. 


$ cts. 
649,574 89 


Carillon and Grenville 


27,783 01 
43,610 39 
95,379 85 


1,046,321 92 
1,321,215 67 


Chambly 


Cornwall 


2,349,575 44 
11,507 48 


Culbute lock and dam 


Lachine 


129,423 68 

7,720 72 

70,778 25 

38,297 91 

49,813 66 

5,034 21 

4,780 47 

5,452 34 

112,840 80 

324,927 27 

43,673 92 


3,698,288 83 
197,689 80 


Murra v 


Ridean 


2,302,793 69 


Sault Ste. Marie 


696,338 84 


Soulanges 


885,364 58 


St. Anne's lock 


162,249 88 


St. Ours 


158,560 04 


St. Peter's 


159,636 66 


Trent 


1,363,740 78 


Welland 


7,008,218 28 


Williamsburg 


988,640 55 






Total 


22,040,200 85 
2,896,044 59 


959,516 48 
125,749 80 


22,999,717 33 


Canals general 


3,021,794 39 






Grand total 


24,936,245 44 


1,085,266 28 


26,021,511 72 







REVENUE ACCOUNT— REPAIRS 



— 


Previous Years 


1924-25 


Total 


Beauharnois 


$ cts. 

525,691 23 

747,356 67 

1,323,678 74 

1,443,097 42 

7,036 15 

3,289,025 00 

133,901 56 
2,606,182 74 

584,871 39 
1,089,429 13 

177,840 80 

150,770 42 

48,091 63 

1,220,533 05 

4,827,298 98 

809,331 76 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 
525,691 23 


Carillon and Grenville 


21,261 17 
50,462 20 

72,863 24 


768,617 84 


Chambly 


1,374,140 94 


Cornwall 


1,515,960 66 


Culbute lock and dam ; 


7,036 15 


Lachine 


178,763 23 

5,942 06 

104,683 28 

33,504 71 

74,385 78 

5,987 83 

4,676 24 

341 72 

76,096 84 

191,470 41 

32,637 46 


3,467,788 23 


Murray 


139,843 62 


Rideau 


2,710,866 02 


Sault Ste. Marie 


618,376 10 


Soulanges 


1.163,814 91 


St. Anne's lock 


183,828 63 


St. Ours 


155,446 66 


St. Peter's 


48,433 35 


Trent 


1,296,629 89 


Welland 


5,018,769 39 


Williamsburg 


841,969 22 






Total 


18,984,136 67 
877,874 54 


853,076 17 
67,294 40 


19,837,212 84 


Canals general 


945,168 94 






Grand total 


19,862,011 21 


920,370 57 


20,782,381 78 







REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 
Total Expenditure by Canals to March 31, 1925 



71 



Canals 



Baie Verte 

Beauharnois 

Carillon and Grenville. 

Chambly 

Cornwall 

Culbute lock and dam. 

Lachine 

Lake St. Francis 

Lake St. Louis 

Murray 

Rideau 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Soulanges 

St. Anne's lock 



St 



Lawrence river canals- 
North channel 

River reaches 

Galops channels 

St. Lawrence ship canal. . 

St. Ours 

St. Peter's 

Tay 

Trent 

Welland 

Welland ship 

Williamsburg 

Farran's Point 

Galops 

Rapide Plat 



Total 

Canals general. 



Grand total. 



Capital 



cts 



1,636, 
4,191, 

780, 
7,246, 

382, 

14,132, 

75, 

298, 
1,248, 
4,214, 
4,935, 
7,904, 
1,270, 



995, 
483, 
039, 
135. 
127, 
648, 
439, 
319, 
908, 
772, 
334, 
877, 
143, 
159, 



029 29 
756 51 
996 52 
304 21 
391 46 
684 80 
906 71 
176 11 
946 71 
263 99 
809 42 
044 53 
215 63 



142 87 
830 20 
895 65 
777 30 
228 56 
547 14 
599 23 
759 73 
497 63 
092 77 
551 80 
090 57 
468 11 
880 80 



163,752,888 25 
34,966 69 



163,787,854 94 



Income 



$ cts. 

44,387 53 
265,810 84 
461,519 72 
889,595 54 
637,119 09 

60,923 37 
,887,173 78 

27,028 08 



101,457 76 
714,865 55 
320,974 77 
493,944 46 
118,018 13 



1 

I 172,074 54 



178,366 58 

781,493 05 

748 65 

2,324,443 90 

3,160,674 17 



396,175 43 



13,036,794 94 
978,792 24 



14,015,587 18 



Revenue 



Staff 



cts 



649,574 89 
1,046,321 92 
1,321,215 67 
2,349,575 44 
11,507 48 
3,698,288 83 



197,689 80 
2,302 793 69 
696,338 84 
885,364 58 
162,249 



158,560 04 
159,636 66 



1,363,740 78 
7,008,218 28 



!,640 55 



22,999,717 33 
3,021,794 39 



26,021,511 72 



Repairs 



cts, 



525,691 23 

768,617 84 

1,374,140 94 

1,515,960 66 

7,036 15 

3,467,788 23 



139,843 62 
2,710,866 02 

618,376 10 
1,163,814 91 

183,828 63 



155,446 66 
48,433 35 



1,296,629 89 
5,018,769 39 



841,969 22 



1,837,212 84 
945,168 94 



20,782,381 78 



Total 



% cts. 

44,387 53 

3,077,106 25 

6,468,215 99 

4,365,948 67 

11,748,959 40 

461,858 46 

23,185,935 64 

102,934 79 

298,176 11 

1,687,937 89 

9,942,789 25 

6,571,499 13 

10,447,168 48 

1.734,312 27 



3,690,943 26 

135,777 30 

619,601 84 

1,638,110 20 

490,347 88 

24,304,574 30 

45,096,159 47 

50,772,092 77 

12,741,776 48 



219,626,613 36 
4,980 722 26 



224,607,335 62 



72 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Yearly Expenditure on Canals and Revenue Received to March 31, 1925 





Year 






Revenue 








Capital 


Income 




Revenue 
received 




ing 


Staff 


Repairs 






$ cts. 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 




Government expenditure prior 














to Confederation, including 














Imperial Government ex- 














penditure 




20,593,866 13 


98,378 46 








Government expenditure (1868 










to 1879 included) 




17,004,842 55 


515,196 21 


1,830,398 92 


1,832,998 61 
147,167 52 


5,079,068 36 
341.598 14 


Govt, expenditure since 


1880 


2,123,366 34 




195,039 33 




1881 


2,075,891 65 


7,246,69 


197,573 62 


154,653 63 


361,558 17 




1882 


1,593,174 09 


55,025 03 


224,572 61 


187,399 02 


325,231 54 


" " ■ 


8883 


1,763,001 97 


62,503 14 


269,415 01 


178,617 86 


361.604 01 


u a 


1884 


1,577,295 42 


60,993 99 


280,657 29 


192,219 38 


372,561 69 




1885 


1,504,621 47 


58,298 29 


280,226 20 


201,708 47 


321,289 47 




1886 


1,333,324 80 


31,984 02 


282,323 63 


198,251 97 


328,977 43 




1887 


1,783,698 16 


65,983 06 


285,172 62 


198,888 84 


321,784 88 


" " 


1888 


1,033,118 34 


120,561 59 


292,458 76 


201,928 93 


317,902 04 




1889 


972,918 43 


162,015 49 


301,040 23 


240,261 36 


333,188 90 


" " 


1890 


1,026,364 24 


146,853 54 


290,516 63 


176,089 00 


354,816 92 




1891 


1,318,092 15 


165,843 87 


294,562 12 


204,768 45 


349.431 90 


" " 


1892 


1,437,149 30 


194,129 61 


293,115 58 


231,089 54 


324,475 24 


" " 


1893 


2,069,573 30 


196,185 84 


291,048 97 


204,759 39 


357,089 87 




1894 


3,027,164 19 


110,512 07 


294,446 34 


179,630 13 


387,788 97 




1895 


2,452,273 65 


216,057 58 


281,477 04 


164,033 71 


339,890 49 




1896 


2,258,778 97 


85,820 49 


292,121 05 


209,321 60 


339.538 72 


<< « 


1897 


2,348,636 91 


101,205 74 


287,970 36 


178,385 47 


384.780 54 


« a 


1898 


3,207,249 79 


82,400 55 


280,872 44 


203,478 86 


407,652 82 


tt it 


1899 


3,899,877 31 


82,205 60 


280,628 57 


202,312 36 


369,044 33 




1900 


2,639,564 93 


120,653 93 


292,609 24 


227,626 97 


322,642 81 


tt tt 


1901 


2,360,569 89 


135,500 57 


314,095 04 


262,876 07 


315,425 68 


" " 


1902 


2,114,689 88 


213,044 91 


317,838 61 


263,768 27 


300,413 66 


tt it 


1903 


1,823,273 61 


275,103 58 


390.281 82 


294,113 92 


230,213 19 


" " 


1904 


1,880,787 20 


298,678 23 


381,016 82 


350,278 54 


f79,536 58 




1905 


2,071,593 72 


352,855 43 


431,499 60 


401,742 79 


78,009 25 


" " 


1906 


1,552,121 21 


310,716 70 


447,962 92 


375,889 60 


108,067 71 


" " 


1907 


887,838 61 


254,423 18 


329,629 63 


287,231 03 


105,003 11 


" " 


1908 


1,708,156 37 


483,250 11 


473,638 95 


411,660 53 


144.882 16 


ti ti 


1909 


1,868,834 45 


699,304 73 


475,515 04 


433,958 10 


199,501 25 


a a 


1910 


1,650,706 64 


459,835 62 


515,585 16 


491,793 02 


193,384 23 


" " 


1911 


2,349,474 49 


385,534 55 


511,305 94 


471,530 32 


221,138 46 


it it 


1912 


2,554,938 91 


384,860 73 


585,899 54 


555,709 95 


264,114 48 


" " 


1913 


2,255,448 21 


292,960 26 


605,248 57 


535,135 66 


307,567 69 


tt it 


1914 


2,824,536 79 


351,397 24 


642,844 68 


574,038 68 


380,188 08 


a tt 


1915 


5,490,796 03 


405,806 32 


675,770 67 


562,599 27 


427,763 16 




1916 


6,142,148 96 


348,174 41 


697,532 44 


529,565 23 


446,722 26 


tt tt 


1917 


4,304,589 09 


372,102 96 


700,022 11 


486,167 67 


461,423 14 




1918 


1,781,957 07 


90,255 66 


743,857 09 


540,331 49 


414,868 21 


a a 


1919 


2,211,935 48 


137,604 37 


733,090 71 


698,878 14 


387,654 90 


a a 


1920 


4,579,565 22 


743,877 26 


745,986 58 


713,334 83 


442,193 02 


it n 


1921 


5,449,961 68 


1,104,239 51 


815,979 22 


920,992 94 


366,010 69 


it it 


1922 


4,482,638 65 


744,990 40 


983,042 31 


1,105,053 90 


804,518 58 


tt tt 


1923 


4,995,184 27 


548,757 36 


924,216 63 


859,839 45 


742,410 46 


it it 


1924 


6,747,395 04 


457,510 91 


980,094 21 


942,056 20 


900,575 26 




1925 


10,619,902 69 


455,955 15 


959,516 48 


853,076 17 


913,075 27 


Total* 




163,752,888 25 


13,046,794 94 


22,999,717 33 


19,837,212 84 


21,636,577 72 









* This does not include expenditure which has been charged to Miscellaneous Canals Expenditure, 
but only the amount expended on specific canals. 
fCanal tolls abolished this year. 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 
Statement of Canals Revenue for Year ending March 31, 1925 



73 



Divisions 


Dues 


Rents 


Total 


Wetland Canal — 

Port Colborne 


$ cts. 

151 88 

362,596 97 

350 26 


$ cts. 
17,129 99 


$ cts. 
17,281 87 


Port Colborne elevator 


362,596 97 


Port Dalhousie 


51,074 06 


51,424 32 






Total 


363,099 11 


68,204 05 
9,893 43 


431,303 16 


Welland Ship Canal 


9,893 43 








St. Lawrence Canals — 

Coteau Landing, Beauharnois canal 




15,026 55 
3,654 60 

24,524 50 

1,743 50 

227,966 76 


15,026 55 


Coteau Landing, Soulanges canal 


26 00 

811 68 

10 00 

24,520 89 

3,818 02 


3,680 60 


Cornwall 


25,336 18 


Cardinal, Williamsburg Canal 


1,753 50 


Lachine canal, Montreal 


252,487 65 


Lachine canal, Lachine 


3,818 02 








Total 


29,186 59 


272,915 91 


302,102 50 


Chambly Canal — 

Chambly 


10 00 
4 00 


778 86 

107 00 

60 00 


788 86 


St. Johns 


111 00 


St. Ours 


60 00 








Total 


14 00 


945 86 


959 86 






Carillon and Grenville canal 


8 00 

46 72 


857 00 

526 00 

1 00 


865 00 


St. Anne's Lock 


572 72 


Chats Falls canal , 


1 00 








Total 


54 72 
310 00 


1,384 00 

12,301 62 
881 91 
376 01 


1.438 72 


Rideau Canal — 

Ottawa 


12,611 62 


Kingston Mills 


881 91 


Smiths Falls 


65 00 


441 01 






Total 


375 00 


13,559 54 


13,934 54 






St. Peter's Canal 




31 00 


31 00 












254 00 


254 00 








Trent Canal 


97 00 


152,969 06 


153,066 06 






Sault Ste. Marie Canal 




92 00 


92 00 








Grand Total 


392,826 42 


520,248 85 


913,075 27 






Net amount deposited to credit of Receiver General 






913,075 27 











74 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



12 



?! 



DQ 






C 
- 

- 
pq 

C 
:: 



c3 
PL, 






C3 






o 

— 









Eh 



OS 



pq 



,o 



c a 

Hi ^ 






O oa 

o 

Hi 



C O 3 



o 



.a h fl 

h G * 
■ — 3 -/ - 



m 



000300iO(MCO'*r-(COO<DNN OHO 
N^oo©003 05NH OOCOlO CM 

— <os iotjT^j tC co co co 



CO t> — < >o 

]>- CO Cn CO 
CO ^ CM i—l 



•-OOOOiOQOO^OOOOOOOO 

Oi-iirju)i0N00*0^OOOOOOO 

r-oqio^OooNOio coco-* 



CS1 i-H ocj 



CO 



COlO CO 

hOh 

co rt< co 



dV> 



^ 2 
■oq-9. 



NOC5CO 

■* craooo 

r-l CO 00 CO 



CO COO 

oo co co 

i-i CO 



> 

Pi 

.2 2 

S3 



►3 as 



^siSs^* issues* 

~~zi £ eu o g -a S3 C "^ 5 b 

a^^^-OOaJ^-^^clcsg^^^S 



J2 N(DOOiOOO>*HOOOOOOO 
£j OMO«3iQtOCOO(OOOtOOOOO 

00-*0>cOSClONNOOKOHHi!t( 
OOrooOiONCO^iHCOOltONIN co >o 
NhooOOOIQNh CO «0 »0 CO 

e© ............ .... 



ihNO 
i-i CO —I 
i-i -* CO 



CO H 



NCCOCO 
-* era CO 00 
ihCOCOCO 



CM CO lO 

00 CO CO 

ICO 



-* O iO (M IM CO O O CR CI N ■* O CO i-H 
OHMiOOOOCMiOO COCO-* 



00 00 O lO 
CM 00 -h CO 



LO >-H CO CO 
CO ^(H l-O 

CO CO 



i-i CO 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 75 

Welland Ship Canals — Amounts Expended on Construction to March 31, 1925 



— 




Year 
ending 


Capital 


Government expenditure 


1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 

1925 


$ cts. 
994,257 60 


tt 11 


4,074,200 69 


It it 


4,892 105,15 


it it 


3,513,769 82 


il it 


1,235,046 59 


li It 


1,-823,875 96 


tt it 


3,499,963 35 


it 11 


5,070,297 57 


it tt 


4,279,815 61 


tt ti 


4,776 393 84 


It tt 


6,465,512 55 


" 10.097.045 62 




Less sale of materials 


187,408 67 


9,909,636 95 








Total 




50,534,875 68 









Expenditure as above $50,534,875 68 

To which add the preliminary expenditure for surveys, 
borings, etc., charged to Welland canal capital as follows: — 

1905-06 $ 13,231 97 

1906-07 10,825 27 

1907-08 8,300 34 

1908-09 19,993 37 

1909-10 ' 9, 979 91 

1910-11 21, 229 35 

1911-12 23, 138 60 

1912-13 112,890 92 

1915-16 17,627 36 



237,217 09 



Total cost of Welland ship canal to March 31, 1925 $50,772,092 77 



Hudson Bay Railway and Port Nelson Terminals- 

31, 1925 



-Expenditure to March 



— 


Year 
ending 


Hudson Bay 
Railway 


Port Nelson 
Terminals 


Total 


Government expenditure 


1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 


$ cts. 

92,427 83 

53,042 63 

184,149 81 

159,632 00 

1,009,024 52 

3,071,631 22 

3,256,074 39 

*2, 981, 425 47 

1,792,190 39 

1,288,789 61 

641,318 69 

247,153 67 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 
92,427 83 






53,042 63 






184,149 81 






159,632 00 




90,038 63 

1,427,086 03 

1,517,669 60 

1,905,706 30 

812,089 55 

590,909 39 

78,760 89 

11,545 19 

121,063 71 

34,769 87 

27,802 56 

24,621 93 

2,184 04 


1,099,063 15 




4,498,717 25 




4,773,743 99 




4,887,131 77 




2,604,279 94 




1,879,699 00 




562,557 80 




235,608 48 




121,063 71 




61,563,43 

13,824 94 

183,250 35 

53,848 38 


96,333 30 




41,627 50 




207,872 28 




51,664 34 








14,487,343 23 


6,244,598 49 


20,731 941 72 



* An amount of $2,000, expenditure provided under Vote 362, Miscellaneous Collection of Revenue, 
year 1915-16 — Compassionate allowance to the widow of the late W. D. Smith, who was accidently killed 
in the discharge of his duties as labourer on the Port Nelson Terminals of the Hudson Bay Railway, 
eliminated. See Capital Expenditure relative to Railways. 



76 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Quebec Bridge — Amounts expended on Construction 



— 


Year 
ending 


Capital 


Income 


Government, eroenditure 


1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1923 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 
422,867 12 










111,788 02 






227,563 40 

603,293 07 

1,512,825 96 

2,604,105 61 

2,816,305 10 

2,746,813 70 

2,733,677 00 

931,278 q,l 

656,761 79 

880 65 




























































24,555 50 






SU 70 




Less amount recer 


red from Phoenix Bridge Co 




14,831,398 29 


559,210 64 
100,000 00 












14,831,398 29 


459,210 64 



Capital expenditure as above $14,831,398 29 

In this expenditure a total of $91,188.10 has been credited, being received for sale 
of scrap and used material from the collapsed bridge. 
Add amounts paid by authorities other than Appropriation Acts — 

Amount guaranteed by Act of 1903, Chapter 54 $ 6,424,781 00 

Amount paid to the province of Quebec 250, 000 00 

Amount paid to the city of Quebec 300, 000 00 

Amount paid to Emile Tanguay, as per Supreme Court award 485 20 



Less amount received from the Phoenix Bridge Co. 



-$ 6,975,266 20 

$21,806,664 49 
100.000 00 



To which add the expenditure under income 1909, 1910 and 1921 , 
Add also amount paid, for subsidies during 1901, 1902 and 1903. . 



$21,706,664 49 



559,210 64 
374,353 33 



933,563 97 



Total expenditure to March 31, 1925 $22,640,228 46 



Employees Compensation Act — Chapter 15, 1918. — Number of Claims on 
which Payments were made, and Amount Disbursed in Compensation, 
Medical Aid and Pensions, Fiscal Year 1924-1925. 



NOVA SCOTIA BOARD 





Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 




5 

3 
31 

167 






5 

5 

31 

199 


$ cts. 
484 05 






2 


936 96 






1,605 94 


Railways and Canals Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways 




32 


22,752 37 


Totals. . . 


206 




34 


240 


25,779 32 









Note.— No medical aid paid by the Nova Scotia Board. 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 
NEW BRUNSWICK BOARD 



77 





Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 


Marine and Fisheries 


4 






4 

2 

10 

650 


$ ots. 
410 97 


Post Office 




2 
1 

71 


903 00 


Public Works 


8 
551 


1 
28 


1,273 90 


Railways and Canals Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways 


61,461 30 






Totals 


563 


29 


74 


666 


64,049 17 





ONTARIO 


BOARD 










Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 


Agriculture 






1 
1 
10 
5 
9 

24 

24 

8 


1 

4 

15 

12 

34 

312 

77 

20 

5 


$ cts. 
650 04 


Interior 


2 

3 

6 

24 

178 

40 

11 

4 


1 
2 

1 
1 

110 
13 

1 
1 


631 37 


Marine and Fisheries 


7,286 01 


National Defence 


2,590.77 


Public Works 


6,621 82 


Railways and Canals Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways 


42,939 76 


Canals 


17,302 77 


Soldiers Civil Re-establishment 


3,366 96 


Trade and Commerce 


698 35 








Totals 


268 


130 


82 


480 


82,087 85 



MANITOBA 


BOARD 










Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 


Interior 






1 

1 
3 

10 


1 
2 

7 

532 


$ cts. 
300 00 


Marine and Fisheries 




1 
2 

235 


260 40 


Public Works 


2 

287 


1,809 22 


Railways and Canals Canadian Govern- 
ment railways 


38,324 68 






Totals 


289 


238 


15 


542 


40,694 30 





ALBERTA 


BOARD 










Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 

only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 


Agriculture 






1 
1 

4 

1 


1 
1 
53 
1 
5 


$ cts. 
559 50 


Indian Affairs 






420 00 


Interior 


34 


15 


6,097 64 
420 00 


Mines 


Trade and Commerce 


2 


3 


143 78 








Totals 


36 


18 


7 


61 


7,640 92 



78 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
BRITISH COLUMBIA BOARD 





Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 




Aid 














1 


1 
3 

8 

1 

27 

7 

15 
47 


$ cts. 
279 51 


Customs and Excise 


3 

4 
1 

17 
4 
7 

18 




167 53 


Interior 


2 


2 


1,651 74 

609 34 


Justice 


Marine and Fisheries 


5 
3 

8 
27 


5 


6,173 54 
195 90 


National Defence 


Post Office 




463 40 


Public Works 


2 


3,625 02 






Totals 


54 


45 


10 


109 


13,165 98 







PROVINCE OF QUEBEC AND MISCELLANEOUS 





Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 


Railways and Canals Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways 


84 
3 






84 
3 


$ cts. 
14,874 05 


Canals 






3,366 35 










Totals 


87 






87 


18,240 40 











SUMMARY 





Number of Claims 




Department 


Compen- 
sation and 
Medical 
Aid 


Medical 
Aid 
only 


Pension 


Total 


Disburse- 
ments 


Agriculture 






3 


3 
3 
1 

66 
1 

53 
1 

24 

17 
129 

1,777 
80 
20 
10 


$ cts. 
1,489 05 


Customs and Excise 


3 




167 53 


Indian Affairs 




1 

8 


420 00 


Interior 


40 

1 

29 


18 


8,680 75 


Justice 


609 34 


Marine and Fisheriess 


8 


i6 
1 

7 

2 

15 

137 
24 

8 


14,617 97 


Mines 


420 00 


National Defence 


13 

7 
83 

1,267 

43 

11 

6 


4 

8 

31 

373 
13 

1 
4 


3,723 63 


Post Office 


1,363 40 


Public Works 


14,935 90 


Railways and Canals Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways 

Canals 


180,352 16 
20,669 12 


Soldiers Civil Re-establishment 


3,366 96 




842 13 








Totals 


1,503 


460 


222 


2,185 


251,657 94 







REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 



79 



EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT— CHAPTER 15, 1918 
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE 

To March 31, 1924 





Dominion 
expenditure 
including 
amounts 
advanced 


Disbursements under the Act 




Board 


Compen- 
sation 
pensions 
etc. 


Proportion 
adminis- 
trative 
expenses 


Interest 


Total 


Balance 

on 
deposit 




$ cts. 

108,121 14 
297,411 60 
237,605 28 
142,497 64 
37,098 18 
55,000 00 

150,581 24 


$ cts. 

90,892 31 

256,226 93 

217,154 74 

119,874 58 

16,799 81 

39,410 41 

150,581 24 


$ cts. 

17,218 80 

31,783 92 

4,928 88 

19,330 40 

3,093 03 

3,364 89 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 

108,111 11 
288,010 85 
222,083 62 
138,707 48 
15,728 13 
38,353 14 

150,581 24 


$ cts. 
10 03 






9,400 75 






15,521 66 


Manitoba 


497 50 

4,164 71 
4,422 16 


3,790 16 


Alberta 

British Columbia 

Province of Quebec and Mis- 


21,370 05 
16,646 86 










Totals to March 31, 1924 


1,028,315 08 


890,940 02 


79,719 92 


9,084 37 


961,575 57 


66,739 51 



Year 1924-1925 





Dominion 
expenditure 
including 
amounts 
advanced 


Disbursements under the Act 




Board 


Compen- 
sation 
pensions, 

etc. 


Proportion 
adminis- 
trative 
expenses 


Interest 


Total 


Balance 

on 
deposit 


Nova Scotia 


$ cts. 

34,956 18 
74,762 81 
79,808 95 
49,005 13 


$ cts. 

25,779 32 
64,049 17 
82,087 85 
40,694 30 
7,640 92 
13,165 98 

18,240 40 


$ cts. 

3,949 98 
8,467 55 
3,042 36 
7,279 40 
789 09 
216 98 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 

29,729 30 
72,516 72 
85,130 21 
47,973 70 
7,398 33 
12,927 50 

18,240 40 

10,116 05 


$ cts. 
5,226 88 


New Brunswick 




2,246 09 


Ontario 




5,321 26 


Manitoba 




1,031 43 


Alberta 


1,031 68 
455 46 


7,398 33 


British Columbia.. . . 




12,927 50 


Province of Quebec and Mis- 
cellaneous 


18,240 40 
10,116 05 




Interest deposited to credit of 
Casual Revenue 




10,116 05 












Totals, year 1924-25 


266,889 52 


251,657 94 


23,745 36 


8,628 91 


284,032 21 


17,142 60 







To March 31, 1925 





Dominion 
exp ^nditure 
including 
amounts 
advanced 


Disbursements under the Act 




Board 


Compen- 
sation 
pensions, 
etc. 


Proportion 
adminis- 
trative 
expenses 


Interest 


Total 


Balance 

on 
deposit 


Nova Scotia 


$ cts. 

143,077 32 
372, 174 41 
317,414 23 
191,502 77 
37,098 18 
55,000 00 

168,821 64 

10,116 05 


$ cts. 

116,671 63 
320,276 10 
299,242 59 
160,568 88 
24,440 73 
52,576 39 

168,821 64 


$ cts. 

21,168 78 

40,251 47 

7,971 24 

26,609 80 

3,882 12 

3,581 87 


$ cts. 


% cts. 

137,840 41 
360,527 57 
307,213 83 
186,681 18 
23,126 46 
51,280 64 

168,821 64 

10,116 05 


$ cts. 
5,236 91 


New Brunswick 




11,646 84 


Ontario 


" "497 "bo 

5, 196 39 
4,877 62 


10,200 40 


Manitoba 


4,821 59 
13,971 72 


Alberta 


British Columbia 


3,719 36 


Province of Quebec and Mis- 
cellaneous 




Interest deposited to credit of 
Casual Revenue . . . 




10,116 05 












Totals to March 31, 1925 


1,295,204 60 


1,142,597 96 


103,465 28 


455 46 


1,245,607 78 


49,596 82 



80 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Capital Expendituke Relative to Railways to March 31, 1925. 



Previous 
years 



Year ending 
Mar. 31, 1925 



Total 



Canadian Government Railways — 

Intercolonial Railway System 

Canada Eastern Railway 

Cape Breton Railway 

Drummond County Railway 

Eastern Extension Railway 

Montreal and European Railway 

Oxford and New Glasgow Railway. 
Intercolonial Railway 



$ cts. 



819,000 00 
3,860,679 14 
1,464,000 00 
1,324,042 81 

333,942 72 

1,949,063 21 

136,818,550 99 



Total. 



146,569,278 87 



New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway 

Prince Edward Island Railway 

International Railway of New Brunswick 

National Transcontinental Railway 

Moncton and Buctouche Railway 

Salisbury and Albert Railway 

St. Martin's Railway 

Elgin and Havelock Railway 

York and Carleton Railway 

Quebec and Saguenay Railway 

Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway 

Lotbiniere and Megantic Railway 

Cape Breton Railway (extension) 

d Hudson Bay Railway 

Canadian Government Railways — Rolling stock 

e Canadian Government Railways — Miscellaneous 

b Quebec Bridge 

Miscellaneous suspense 



861, 

13,276, 

2,963, 

169,327, 

293, 

437, 

302, 

135, 

59, 

,772, 

711, 

360, 

107, 

14,541, 

35,906, 

21,706, 



7,772 



847 83 
674 49 
021 87 
468 90 
067 16 
647 60 
045 64 
029 12 
749 15 
911 03 
767 38 
008 39 
646 73 
191 61 
042 55 
345 00 
664 49 



Total. 



Other Railways and Miscellaneous — 

Canadian Northern Railway 

Annapolis and Digby Railway 

a European and North American Railway 

a Nova Scotia Railway 

c Carleton Branch Railway 

Canadian Pacific Railway 

Hudson Bay Railway — Port Nelson Terminals , 

Yukon Territory Works, Stikine — Teslin Railway. . 
/ North Railway 

Governor General's cars 

e Miscellaneous expenditure 



415,332,407 81 



9,999,999 90 

660,683 

88,363 18 

208,509 72 

48,410 48 

62,790,024 81 

6,242,414 45 

283,323 55 

250,000 00 

71,538 82 

18,000 00 



Total. 



495,993,675 81 



$ cts, 



42,894 91 



cts. 



819,000 00 
3,860,679 14 
1,464,000 00 
1,324,042 81 

333,942 72 

1,949,063 21 

136,861,445 90 



42,894 91 



32,592 34 



53,848 38 



3,862 40 



146,612,173 78 

861,847 83 

13,276,674 49 

2,963,021 87 

169,294,876 56 

293,067 16 

437,647 60 

302,045 64 

135,029 12 

59,749 15 

7,772,911 03 

711,767 38 

360,008 39 

107,646 73 

14,487,343 23 

35,906,042 55 

345 00 

21,706,664 49 

3,862 40 



39,683 41 
10 



2,184 04 



415,292,724 40 



10,000,000 00 

660,683 09 

88,363 18 

208,509 72 

48,410 48 

62,790,024 81 

6,244,598 49 

283,323 55 

250,000 00 

71,538 82 

18,000 00 



37,499 27 



495,956,176 54 



a Amount paid between 1868 and 1873, inclusive, was transferred to Consolidated Fund. 

b Adjusted to agree with Schedule F of the Public Accounts, and agrees with Canadian National 
Railways Balance Sheet for 1925. 

c This railway, which cost $88,410.48, was sold in 1893 to the City of St. John, N.B., for §40,000 
(Vic. Cap. 6). 

dAn expenditure of $2,000, provided under Vote 362, Miscellaneous Collection of Revenue, Year 
191.5-16— Compassionate allowance to the widow of the late W. D. Smith. See Recapitulation of expend- 
iture, next page. 

e Expenditure made during 1917-18, re construction of wooden vessels, transferred from miscellaneous 
expenditure to Canadian Government Railways. 

/ Expenditure made during 1914-15. 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 81 

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE RELATIVE TO RAILWAYS 

Recapitulation of Expenditure and Revenue to March, 31, 1925 





Capital 


Revenue 




— 


Compas- 
sionate 
and mis- 
cellaneous 


Improve- 
ments and 
better- 
ments 


Working 
expenses 


Revenue 
received 


Expenditure prior to Confed- 
eration 


$ cts. 

13,881,460 65 

105,592,016 89 

1,184,317 34 

417,425 73 

712,917 44 

585,749 01 

376,814 83 

324,774 72 

204,624 31 

270,990 85 

1,112,348 47 

3,309,130 42 

3,922,989 37 

5,386,611 24 

3,083,680 86 

2,619,059 86 

6,125,481 79 

6,102,565 74 

7,174,370 17 

23,684,005 25 

29,414,227 34 

21,505,975 91 

24,532,466 18 

23,108,805 52 

17,375,968 10 

21,628,095 15 

22,115,663 92 

21,153,255 19 

12,003,649 70 

34,699,416 96 

40,193,180 64 

11,593,148 00 

5,096,534 94 

4,553,638 03 

1,052,292 72 

315,943 52 

37,499 37 


$ cts. 


% cts. 


$ cts. 


$ cts. 


Since Confederation — 
1868 to 1890 inclusive 


43,639 97 




45,661,435 22 

3,949,263 73 

3,748,597 77 

3,288,629 62 

3,226,208 13 

3,197,846 17 

3,254,442 64 

3,195,959 58 

3,507,248 88 

3,696,612 31 

4,665,228 06 

5,739,051 54 

5,861,099 54 

6,474,134 20 

7,599,958 57 

8,906,154 35 

7,893,653 49 

6,328,745 65 

9,595,295 43 

9,764,586 51 

9,095,903 96 

10,037,878 77 

11,074,852 80 

12,499,925 65 

13,559,225 45 

12,474,453 85 

17,891,484 65 

24,725,571 90 

33,400,460 45 

43,889,626 07 

48,194,709 86 

43,770,971 10 

6,326,800 47 

5,695,669 05 


39,107,792 60 


1890 to 1891 




3,181,888 56 


1891 to 1892 






6, 136,393 51 


1892 to 1893.... 






3,262,505 62 


1893 to 1894 






3,179,019 57 


1894 to 1895 






3,129,450 37 


1895 to 1896 






3,140,678 47 


1896 to 1897 






3,060,074 38 


1897 to 1898 


1,400 00 




3,313,847 10 


1898 to 1899 




3,940.570 11 


1899 to 1900 






4,774,161 87 


1900 to 1901 


4 




5,213,381 24 


1901 to 1902 






5,918,990 43 


1902 to 1903 






6,584,598 77 


1903 to 1094 






6,627,255 51 


1904 to 1905 






7,050,892 11 


1905 to 1906 






7,950,552 97 


1906 to 1907 






6,509,186 49 


1907 to 1908 






9,534,569 04 


1908 to 1909 






8,894,420 42 


1909 to 1910 






9,647,963 71 


1910 to 1911 


1,000 00 

3,950 00 

4,500 00 

11,300 00 

23,000 00 

3,400 00 

4,000 00 

15,100 00 

17,000 00 

8,500 00 

2,000 00 




10,249,394 38 


1911 to 1912 




11,034,165-83 


1912 to 1913 




12,442,203 46 


1913 to 1914 




13,394,317 37 


al914 to 1915 




12,149,357 32 


bl915 to 1916 


1,515,895 67 
1,070,334 64 


18,427,908 65 


1916 to 1917 


23,539,758 61 


1917 to 1918 


27,240,956 87 


1918 to 1919 




38,013,725 69 


1919 to 1920 




41,402,061 36 


1920 to 1921 




36,814,349 70 


*1921 to 1922 






1922 to 1923 








1923 to 1924 








1924 to 1925 






















474,271,512 05 


138,789 97 


2,586,230 21 


442,191,685 42 


391,866,392 09 



$ cts. 

Total amount of Capital Expenditure 474,271,512 05 

Cost of Quebec bridge to March 31, 1925 21,706,664 49 

Miscellaneous expenditure in 1914 18,000 00 

495,996 176 54 
Less amount received from the City of St. John, N.B., as purchase 

price of Carleton Branch Railway 40, 000 00 

495,956,176 54 

*Under authority of Item 341, Chapter 54, 1921, the receipts and revenues of the Canadian Govern- 
ment Railways were from, Jan. 1, 1921, applied by the management towards payment of working expendi- 
tures. 

a. Expenditures of North Railway included. 

b. Amount of $2,000.00 transferred from Capital. 



6059—6 



82 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

II. — Statement showing Subsidies paid March 31, 1925 



Subsidies 


Voted 


u 

a 


Railways 


July 1,1883, 

to 

March 31, 

1922 




Authority 


Amount 


Total 


47 Vic, chap. S 


\ 51,200 00 

1 ; 

186,500 annually 
for 20 years . . . 

\ 320,000 00\ 
J 300,000 00/ 

62,400 00 
22,400 00 
57,600 00 
128,000 00 
64,000 00 

96,000 00 

6,400 00 

96,000 00 

38,400 00 

180,000 00 

175,000 00 

128,000 00 

19,200 00 

32,000 00 

24,439 84 

140,800 00 

35,200 00 

32,000 00 
57,600 00 
22,400 00 
48,000 00 
47,000 00 
70,400 00 

1 ; 

3,630,000 00 

80,000 00 

1,500,000 00 
9,000 00 

115,200 00 
76,800 00 
32,000 00 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 
7 

8 
9 

10 
11 
12 

u 
1 

14 
1 15 

i. 

16i 
, 17 

18 

• 19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

}. 


Albert Southern Railway, N.B 


50,460 00 

404, 4S0 00 

2,048,704 00 

547,648 00 
163,418 19 

3,732,000 00 
902,800 00 

620,000 00 

141,722 45 
62,400 00 

21,888 00 

57,600 00 

140,800 00 
53,920 00 
101,600 00 
282,355 20 
175,000 00 

374,839 84 
210,053 59 

1,265,357 14 

3,120,000 00 
14,485,635 20 

1,909,132 00 

5,987,520 00 

391,819 75 

3,404,720 00 
22,336 00 

126,000 00 

80,032 00 

153,866 00 

485,474 27 

115,000 00 

435,200 00 

160,000 00 

80,000 00 

83,200 00 

13,024 00 

112,000 00 

64,000 00 

34,522 43 

i, 500, 000 00 

7,424 00 

196,800 00 

224,000 00 


50,460 00 

404,480 00 

2,048,704 00 

547,648 00 


52 - 3 
3-4 Geo. V, chap 46 


Alberta Central Railway, Alta 


62-3 Vic, chap. 7 
B3H " S 
1 Ed. VII, chap. 7 
9-10 " 51 


Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Ry . , Ont 

AlgomaEastern Ry. Co., formerly Manitoulin and 
North Shore Ry. Co. , Ontario 


1 " 7 


Atlantic and Lake Superior Ry . , Quebec 


163,418 19 


37 Vic, chap. 14 




3,732,000 00 


6 Ed. VII, chap. 43 
9-10 " 51 

46 Vic, chap. 25 

47 " 8 


Atlantic , Quebec and Western Ry . Co. , Quebec . . . 


902,800 00 
620 000 00 


52 " 3 


Bay of Quinte Railway, Ontario, now Canadian 


141,722 45 


50-1 Vic, chap. 27 




62,400 00 
21,888 00 
57,600 00 

140 800 00 


56 " 4 
48-9 " 54 
49 " 19 
50-1 " 24 
51-8 " 4 
48-9 " 59 
53 " 2 
54-5 " 8 


Belleville and North Hastings Railway, Ontario.. . 
Brantford, Waterloo and Lake Erie Ry., Ontario. . 

Brockville , Westpor t and Sault St e . Marie Railway, 


57-8 " 4 

49 Vic, chap. 10 
50-1 " 24 
48-9 " 59 
49 " 10 


Br uce Mines and Algoma Railway, Ontario 

Buctouche and Moncton Railway, New Brunswick. 


53,920 00 
101,600 00 
282,355 20 


50-1 " 24 
App. Act. 2, 1918 




175,000 00 


47 " 8 
48-9- " 59 
49 " 10 
48-9 " 59 
51 " 3 


Canada Eastern Ry. , formerly Northern and West- 
ern Ry., New Brunswick, including also Chat- 


374,839 84 


57-8 " 4 
62-3 " 7 




210,053 59 


47 Vic, chap. 8 
49 " 10 

52 " 3 

53 " 2 
56 " 2 


Canadian Northern Quebec Ry. Co., formerly 


1,265,357 14 


57-8 " 4 
7-8 Ed. VII, c. 63 
2 Geo. V, chap. 7 
3-4 " 10 
6-7 Ed VII, c 40 


Canadian Northern Alberta Ry. Co., Alberta 


3,120 000 00 

14,485,635 20 


7-8 u u 63 


Canadian Northern Ry. Co., Ontario, Manitoba 


1,909,132 00 


2 Geo. V, chap. 9 


Canadian Northern Pacific Ry. Co., British 


5,987,520 00 


— 


Canadian Northern Quebec Ry., formerly Cha- 


391,819 75 


60-61 Vic, chap. 5 


Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., British Columbia 


3,404,720 00 


2 Geo. V, chap. 48 


Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. (Dyment Branch) 

Canadian Pacific Ry., Bridge at Edmonton, 


22,336 00 
126,000 00 


3-4 " 46 
1 


Canadian Pacific Ry., Gimli to Icelandic River 


80,032 00 




Can. Pac Ry. Co. (Kootenay and Arrowhead 


153,866 00 


7-8 Ed. VII, c 63 
2 Geo. V, chap. 48 


Can. Pac. Ry. Co., Moosejaw northwesterly 


485,474 27 
115.000 00 




Can. Pac. Ry. Co. (Pheasant Hills Branch) 


435,200 00 
160,000 00 


55-6 Vic, chap. 5 
« 


Can. Pac . Ry . Co. (Revelstoke to Arrow Lake) . . . 


80,000 00 
83,200 00 


4Edw.VII,chap34 




13,024 00 


6 " 43 


Can. Pac. Ry. Co. Teulon to Icelandic River) 


112,000 00 
64,000 00 


7-8 Ed. VII, c. 63 




34,522 43 


48-9 Vic. chap. 58 




1,500,000 00 


57-8 " 4 




7,424 00 


46 Vic, chap. 25 

47 " 8 


Cape Breton Extension Railway, Nova Scotia 


196,800 00 
224,000 00 


50-1 " 24 







REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 33 

II. — Statement showing Subsidies paid to March 31, 1925 — Continued 



Subsidies Voted 



Authority 



47" Vic, chap. 

51 

52 

53 

57-8 

61 

62-3 

2 Ed. VII, chap. 48 

46 Vic, chap. 2 

7 " 8 

6-7 Ed. VII, c. 40 



6 Ed. VII, chap. 43 

53 Vic, chap. 2 

50-1 " 24 

52 

5 0-l 

5-6 

fo-i 

5 7-8 



3-4Geo.V,chap.46 
6-7 Ed. VII, c 40 

46 Vic, chap. 25 

51 " 3 

47 " 8 
47 " 6 

2 Geo. V, chap. 48 

52 Vic, chap. 3 



60-61 

63 

56 

7-8 Ed, VII, c 

49 Vic, chap. 

50-1 

56 

53 

50-1 

57— g " 

9-10 Ed. VII, c 51 



50-1 Vic. chap. 

49 

52 

46 

53 

7-8 Ed. VII, c 



47 vie, c hap. 8 

52 " 3 

49 " 10 

50-1 " 24 
6 Ed. VII, chap. 43 

46 Vic, chap. 24 
49 " 10 
50-1 24 
52 " 3 
55-6 " 5 

47 Vic, chap. 8 
6 Ed. VII,chap.43 
2 " 48 
50-1 Vic, chap. 23 
55-6 " 4 
62-3 " 5 
2 Geo. V, chap. 48 
50-1 Vic, chap. 24 
57-8 " 4 

6059—6 § 



Amount 



83,612 00 
142,400 00 
48,000 00 



1,525,250 00 



112,000 00 
44,800 00 



750 



800 00 
600 00 
400 00 
000 00 
400 00 
800 00 
000 00 



400 00 
252 82 
000 00 
000 00 



30,000 00 

500,000 00 

48,000 00 



9, 
108, 
48, 
156, 



000 00 
000 00 
000 00 
500 00 
200 00 



600 00 
800 00 
000 00 
800 00 



160,000 00 



38,400 
4,000 

89,600 
70,000 
12,800 
32,000 
64,000 
48,000 



118,400 
224,000 



65,022 00 
274,940 00 



70 



Railways 



Central Railway, New Brunswick 

Central Railway of Canada, Quebec , now Canadian 

National Ry *" 

Canada Central Railway 

Central Ontario Railway Co., Ontario, now Cana- 
dian National Ry v 

Coast Line of Nova Scotia (Halifax and Yarmouth 
Ry.), now Canadian National Ry 

Colchester Coal and Railway Co., Nova Scotia. . . 

Columbia and Kootenay Ry. Co., B.C 

Cornwallis Valley Railway Co., Nova Scotia 

Cumberland Railway and Coal Co., Nova Scotia.. 

Dominion Coal Co., Nova Scotia 

Dominion Lime Co. , Quebec 

Drummond County Railway, Quebec 

East Richelieu Valley Railway Co., Quebec 
(Quebec, Montreal and Southern Ry.) . ._ 

Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Rail- 
way, Alberta 

Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Co., Al- 
berta, now Canadian National Ry 

Elgin, Petitcodiac and Havelock Railway, N.B. . 

Erie and Huron Railway, Ontario 

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, British Colum 

bia 

Fredericton and Grand Lake Railway Co., New 

Brunswick 

Fredericton and St. Mary's Ry. Bjidge Co., New 

Brunswick 

Grand Trunk Ry. Co., Victoria Jubilee Bridge, 

Quebec 

Grand Trunk, Georgian Bay and Lake Erie Ry., 

Ontario 

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co 

Great Eastern Railwas^, Quebec 

Guelph Junction Railway, Ontario 

Gulf Shore Railway Company, New Brunswick. . . 

Ha-Ha-Bay Railway Co., Quebec 

Halifax and Southwestern Railway Co., Nova 

Scotia, now Canadian National Ry 

Harvey Branch Railway Co., New Brunswick. . . . 
Hereford Railway, Quebec 

International Railway. , Quebec 

International Ry. of New Brunwsick, formerly 
Restigouche and Western Ry. Co 

Inverness Railway and Coal Co 

Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway, Ontario, 
no-w Canadian National Ry 

Joggins Railway, Nova Scotia 

Kettle Valley Ry . , British Columbia 

Kingston, Napanee and Western Ry., formerly 
Napanee, Tamworth and Quebec Ry. , Ontario, 
now Canadian National Ry 

Kingston and Pembroke Ry. , Ontario 

Klondike Mines Railway 

Kootenay Central Ry. Co., British Columbia 

Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway, Ontario. . 

Lake Erie and Northern Ry. Co. , Ontario 

Lake Temiscamingue Colonization Ry., Quebec... . 



July 1, 1883, 
to 
March 31, 
1922 



226,012 54 



30,145 02 
1,525,250 00 



205,862 79 

160,000 00 
12,800 00 
88,800 00 
44,800 00 

39,850 00 
87,808 00 
15,360 00 

423,936 00 



69,952 00 

338,382 48 

91,200 00 
82,652 82 

96,000 00 

1,520,560 00 

216,576 00 

30,000 00 

500,000 00 

39,744 00 
1,220,480 00 

40,345 00 



46,000 00 

53,699 20 

231,462 00 

1,238,450 93 

5,553 57 

155,200 00 

156,800 00 



726,080 00 
368,545 97 

144,000 00 

37,500 00 

2,174,190 72 



208,732 80 

48,000 00 

197,184 00 

1,065,856 00 

475,851 00 

320,192 00 
310,335 95 



Total 



$ cts. 



226,012 54 



30,145 02 
1,525,250 00 



205,862 79 

160,000 00 
12,800 00 
88,800 00 
44,800 00 

39,850 00 
87,808 00 
15,360 00 

423,936 00 



69,952 00 

338,382 48 

91,200 00 
82,652 82 

96,000 00 

1,520,560 00 

216,576 00 

30,000 00 

500,000 00 

39,744 00 
1,220,480 00 

40,345 00 



46,000 00 

53,699 20 

231,462 00 

1,238,450 93 

5,553 57 

155,200 00 

156,800 00 



726,080 00 
368,545 97 

144,000 00 

37,500 00 

2,174,190 72 



208,732 80 

48,000 00 

197,184 00 

1,065,856 00 

475,851 00 

320,192 00 
310,335 95 



84 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

II. — Statement showing Subsidies paid to March 31, 1925 — Continued 



Subsidies Voted 



Authority 



49 Vic., chap. 10 

60-1 " 24 

48-9 " 50 
50-1 

6-7 Ed. VII, c. 40 

45 Vic, chap. 14 
55-6 Vic, chap., 5 
57-8 " 

7-8 Ed. VII, c 63 



3 Ed. VII, chap. 57 



56 Vic, chap. 

57-8 

60-1 

48-9 

50-1 

51 



53 

50-1 

53 

54-5 

57-8 

1 Ed. VII, chap. 7 

48-9 " 59 

53 " 2 



53 Vic, chap. 
Ed. VII, chap. 43 



48-9 Vic, chap. 59 
55-6 

Ed. VII, chap. 57 

7-8 " 63 



2 Geo. V, chap. 47 

3-4 

46 " 26 

53 " 2 

55-6 " 5 

61 

56 



53 Geo. V, chap 2 
3 Ed. VII, chap. 2 
56 " 2 

55-6 " 5 



52 Vic 

57-8 

60-1 

52 

57-8 



chap. 



55-6 Vic. chap. 5 

47 " 8 

51 " 3 

53 

60-1 

63-4 " 

52 

51 

53 

62-3 

63-4 " 8 

47 " 8 

51 " 3 

co n 9 

7-8 Ed. VII, c 63 



Amount 



$ cts. 

11,200 00 

'17,600 00 

44,800 00 

6,400 00 



48,000 00 
48,000 00 



67,200 00 
38,400 00 
66,000 00 
30,000 00 
64,000 00 
9,600 00 
32,000 00 
10,200 00 

192,000 00 



72,000 00 
40,000 00 



361, 
121, 



118, 
40, 



270 00 
600 00 



400 00 
000 00 



660,000 00 
660,000 00 
240,000 00 

32,000 00 

99,200 00 
22,400 00 



320,000 00 
64,000 00 



128,000 
64,000 00 



272,000 00 
41,000 00 
24,000 00 

212,500 00 

19,200 00 
287,200 00 

1,000,000 00 

60,342 00 

288,000 00 



98 



100 



101 



118 
119 
120 

121 

0\12 

123 

124 

125 
120 

127 

128 

129 



Railways 



L'Assomption Railway, Quebec 

Laurentian Railway, now Canadian National Ry. 
Leamington and St. Clair Ry., Ontario 



Liverpool and Milton Ry . , now Canadian National 
Ry. 



Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Pontypool Ry. Co., Ontario 
Lotbiniere and Megantic Railway, Quebec 



Maganetawan River Railway Co. , Ontario 

Maritime Coal and Railway Co 

Massawippi Valley Railway Co., Quebec 

Midland Railway Co. , Nova Scotia 

Middleton and Victoria Beach Railway Co., Nova 

Scotia, now Canadian National Ry 

Minudie Coal Co. , Nova Scotia 



130 



Montfort Colonization Railway, 
Canadian National Ry 



Quebec, now 



Montreal and Champlain Junction Railway, Quebec 
Montreal and Lake Maskinonge Railway, Quebec. 



Montreal and Ottawa Railway, Ontario . 



Montreal and Province Line Railway, Quebec 

Montreal and Sorel Railway, Quebec (Quebec 
Montreal and Southern Ry.) 



Montreal and Western Railway, Quebec 

Nakusp and Slocan Railway, British Columbia. . . . 

Napierville Junction Railway Co., Quebec 

New Brunswick Coal and Railway Co., New 

Brunswick 

New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway 
New Glasgow Iron, Coal and Railway Co., Nova 

Scotia t 

Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal Railway 

Co 

North Shore Railway Co., formerly Beersville 

Coal and Railway Co 

Northern Colonization Railway Co., Quebec... . 
Northern New Brunswick and Seaboard Railway 

Co. , New Brunswick 

Northern and Pacific Junction Railway, Ontario.. . 

Nova Scotia Central Railway Co., Nova Scotia, 
now Canadian National Ry 

Ontario, Belmont and Northern Ry. Co., Ontario 
(Marmora Ry. and Mining Co.) now Canadian 
National Ry 

Orford Mountain Railway Company, Quebec 



Oshawa Railway and Navigation Co. , Ontario. — 
Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound Ry., Ontario... 
Ottawa and New York Railway Company, Ontario 

Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway, Quebec, 
formerly Ottawa and Gatineau Valley Railway 
2Parry Sound and Colonization Railway, Ontario. . 



Pembroke Southern Railway, Ontario 

Phillipsburg Junction Ry. Quarry Co., Quebec. 

Pontiac Pacific Junction Railway, Quebec 



Pontiac Pacific and Ottawa and Gatineau Ry. Co 
(Interprovincial Bridge over Ottawa River). . . 

Pontiac and Renfrew Railway, Ontario 

Port Arthur, Duluth and Western Ry., Ontario 
now Canadian National Ry 

Quebec Bridge Co. , Quebec 



Quebec Central Ry., Quebec. 



July 1,1883, 

to 

March 31, 

1922 



$ cts. 

11,200 00 
217,600 00 
51,200 00 



32,000 00 
185,173 06 
96,000 00 

3,552 00 

3,200 00 

5,376 00 

339,060 40 

125,760 00 
18,544 00 



167,440 00 
103,600 00 
41,280 00 

192,000 00 

58,560 00 

93,757 57 

361,270 00 
117,760 00 
173,440 00 

48,000 00 
113,440 00 

39,840 00 

300,800 00 

27,616 00 
355,200 00 

108,160 00 
1,320,000 00 

235,200 00 



30,720 00 
202,926 50 

22,400 00 
779,712 00 
262,384 00 



414,931 20 
152,800 00 



64,000 00 
23,712 00 



193,578 00 



212,500 00 
13,600 00 



271,200 00 
374,353 33 



585,038 90 



Total 



$ cts. 

11,200 00 
217,600 00 
51,200 00 



32,000 00 
185,173 06 
96,000 00 

3,552 00 

3,200 00 

5,376 00 

399,060 40 

125,760 00 
18,544 00 



167,440 00 
103,600 00 
41,280 00 

192,000 00 



58, 

93, 

361, 
117, 
173, 

48, 
113, 

39, 

300, 

27, 
355, 

108, 
1,320, 



560 00 

757 57 

270 00 
760 00 
440 00 

000 00 
440 00 

840 00 

800 00 

616 00 
200 00 

160 00 
000 00 



235,200 00 



30,720 00 
202,926 50 

22,400 00 
779,712 00 
262,384 00 



414,931 20 
152,800 00 



64,000 00 
23,712 00 



193,578 00 



212,500 00 
13,600 00 



271,200 00 
374,353 33 



585,038 90 



REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT 



85 



II. — Statement showing Subsidies paid to March 31, 1925 — Concluded 



ISubsidies Voted 



Authority 



Amount 



Railways 



July 1, 1883, 

to 

March 31, 

1922 



Total 



45 Vic, chap. 14 

46 " 25 



48-49 



50-1 " 

51 

52 

53 

54-5 

57-8 

52 Vic, chap. 3 

56 



7-8 Ed. VII, c 51 

52 Vic, chap. 
2 Geo. V, chap. 48 
50-1 Vic, chap 24 
7-8 Ed. VII, c 
50-1 Vic, chap. 24 
55-6 " 5 

57-8 " 4 

52 " 3 
2 Geo., V, chap. 48 

53 Vic, chap. 2 
55-6 " 5 
60-61 " 4 
47 " 8 



7-8 Ed. VII, c 63 



7-8 



63 



56 Vic, chap. 2 

3-4 Geo. V, chap. 53 

45 Vic, chap. 14 
48-9 " 58 

51 " 3 
53 " 2 
7-8 Ed. VII, c 63 

52 Vic, chap. 3 
63-4 " 8 



55-6 

57-8 

60-1 

62-63 

54-5 

53 

55-6 

59 

56 

57-8 



7-8 Ed. VII, c 34 



53 Vic 

49 

53 

62-3 
47 



chap . 2 
10 

2 

7 



$ cts 

384,000 00 

80,000 00 

96,000 00 

186,295 00 

28,800 00 

96,000 00 

64,000 00 

40,000 00 

5,250 00 

44,800 00 

96,000 00 



162,200 00 

54,400 00 

138,300 00 
108,000 00 
108,800 00 
375,000 00 

57,600 00 
25,024 00 

22,400 00 



240,000 00 
258,000 00 
100,000 00 
51,200 00 

54,400 00 



89,600 00 

35,200 00 

9,600 00 

16,000 00 

102,400 00 

102,400 00 



35,200 00 
256,000 00 



2,394,000 00 



131 



132 
132£ 

133 

134 
135 
136 
137 
138 

[139 

140 
141 

142 

143 
144 

145 

146 

146| 

147 



148 



Quebec and Lake St. John Railway, Quebec, now 
Canadian National Ry 



Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix Railway 

Co. , Quebec 

Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Co. — See 

South Shore Ry., Quebec. 
Quebec and Saguenay RailwayCo. , Quebec. — 
Schomberg and Aurora Railway Co. , Ontario. . . 
Shuswap and Okanagan Railway, British Columbia 

Southampton Railway Co., New Brunswick 

South Norfolk Railway, Ontario 

South Shore Railway (Quebec, Montreal and 

Southern) , Quebec 

St. Catharines and Niagara Central Railway. 

Ontario 

St. Clair Frontier Tunnel Co. , Ontario 

St. John and Quebec Railway Co., New Brunswick 

St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway, Quebec... . 

St. Louis and Richibucto Railway, New Brunswick 
St. Mary River Railway Co., Northwest Terri 

tories ; 

St. Mary's and Western Ontario Railway Co. 

Ontario 

St. Maurice Valley Railway Co., Three Rivers to 

Grand'Mere, Quebec 

St, Stephen and Milltown Railway, New Bruns 

wick 

Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Co. 

Ontario 



Temiscouata Railway, New Brunswick and Quebec 



Thessalon and Northern Railway Co., Ontario. 
Thousand Islands Railway, Ontario 



152 



155 



Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway, Ontario 



Tobique Valley Railway, New Brunswick. 



Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway, Ontario 

United Counties Railway Co., Quebec (Quebec, 

Montreal and Southern) 

Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Co., British 

Columbia . : 

Waterloo Junction Railway, Ontario 

West Ontario Pacific Railway and Ontario and 

Quebec Railway 

York and Carleton Railway, New Brunswick 

Provincial Govt, of Quebec — Quebec-Montreal 



1,261,463 50 



96,000 00 



248, 
46, 

163, 
81, 
54, 



801 28 
144 00 
200 00 
280 00 
400 00 



529,442 00 



38, 

375, 

1,005, 

149, 
22, 

148, 
67, 

173, 

14, 

2,134, 

645, 



400 00 
000 00 

902 42 

481 60 
400 00 
094 00 
709 00 
120 00 
848 00 
080 00 
950 00 



6,112 00 
29,840 00 



150,071 48 

134,016 00 

14,656 00 

188,816 00 

61,760 00 
32,800 00 

256,000 00 

32,896 00 

2,394,000 00 



$ cts. 



1,261,463 50 



96,000 00 

248,801 28 
46,144 00 

163,200 00 
81,280 00 
54,400 00 

529,442 00 

38,400 00 

375,000 00 

1,005,902 42 

m 

149,481 60 
22,400 00 

148,094 00 
67,709 00 

173,120 00 

14,848 00 

2,134,080 00 

645,950 00 



6,112 00 
29,840 00 



150,071 48 

134,016 00 

14,656 00 

* 188,816 00 

61,760 00 
32,800 00 

256,000 00 

32,896 00 

2,394,000 00 



Total. 



178,785,471 09 



78,785,471 09 



fThis amount does not include the subsidy of $25,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, nor the amount of $660,683. 
expended on the Annapolis and Digby Railway, both of which are included in Capital Account. 

Agreement with Public Accounts 1923-24 as follows: — $ cts. 

Above statement shows 78, 785, 471 09 

Total as per Public Accounts 76, 115,221 09 



Difference 

Difference is located as follows: — 
Public Accounts Statement does not include, in Subsidy Account 



2,670,250 00 



(a) Item 40 (part) . 

(b) Item 46 

(c) Item 16J 



$ cts. 

970,000 00 

1,525,250 00 

175,000 00 

2,670,250 00 



86 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE DEPART- 
MENT OF RAILWAY AND CANALS. 

Sir, — I have the honour to submit my annual report for the fiscal year 
ending March 31, 1925. 

The canal system of Canada comprises a series of canals and canalized 
waters by which a total waterway of 1,831 miles has been opened to navigation. 
These canals may be considered under two main classes : the through St. Law- 
rence and Great Lakes route and the subsidiary canals or branches. By the 
former, communication with seaports is made possible for the large vessels 
which navigate the Great Lakes. The latter or branch system of canals serves 
for the most part the requirements of a merely local traffic. 

The through water route between Montreal, at the head of ocean navigation, 
and Fort William and Port Arthur, on the west shore of lake Superior comprises 
74 miles of canal, with forty-nine locks and 1,140 miles of river and lake waters, 
or a total of 1,214 miles. The minimum depth of water on this route, at normal 
low water level, is 14 feet. From Montreal to Duluth, at the southwest end of 
lake Superior, the total distance is 1,337 miles, and to Chicago 1,244 miles. 
Connection is made with the Canadian Pacific Railway from points West and 
south at Fort William and Port Arthur (6 miles apart). From Fort William, 
connection with the main transcontinental line of the Canadian National Rail- 
ways is made by the branch line originally constructed by the Grand Trunk 
Pacific Railway, but now operated by the Canadian National Railways. 

Of the minor or branch systems the Ottawa river, Rideau, Murray and 
Trent canals, while geographically branches of the main route, attend, as already 
noted, chiefly to the needs of local traffic. Isolated from the systems just men- 
tioned are the Richelieu river canals consisting of the St. Ours lock and Chambly 
canal, by which a waterway for vessels of light draught is opened between Sorel 
on the St. Lawrence river and lake Champlain, and the St. Peter's canal in the 
extreme East, which provides communication between the Bras d'Or lakes of 
Cape Breton island and the Atlantic ocean. 

A full statement of the various canals and canalized waters now in operation, 
with their mileage, limiting dimensions, ete., is the subject of a separate depart- 
mental publication, "The Canals of Canada." A summary of this data is, 
however, appended to this report. 

In the detailed report which follows, the various canal systems, etc., are 
taken up in the following order: — 

1. The present St. Lawrence and Great Lakes route between Montreal 

and lake Superior; 

2. The route from Montreal to Kingston via the Ottawa and Rideau rivers; 

3. The navigation of the Richelieu river from its junction with the St. 

Lawrence to lake Champlain; 

4. The route from lake Ontario to Georgian bay via the Trent river, etc.; 

5. The St. Peter's canal across the isthmus at the southerly end of Cape 

Breton island; 

6. Miscellaneous works. 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 87 

1. ST LAWRENCE AND GREAT LAKES ROUTE 

(a) Lachine Canal 

This canal, which lies across the southeasterly portion of the island of Mon- 
treal, overcomes the difference in level between the harbour of Montreal and 
lake St. Louis caused by the Lachine rapids. It is 8J miles long and has five 
locks with a minimum depth, at normal low water level, of 14 feet. 

The canal was opened to navigation April 21 and closed December 13. 
Traffic was subject to but one interruption which occurred November 16 
when basin No. 2 had to be partially un watered for a period of sixteen hours to 
allow of the removal of the hull and cargo of the steamer Maisonneuve which 
after burning had sunk forming an obstacle to navigation. 

The principal items in construction, improvements and repairs effected 
daring the year were as follows: A new gate lifter 65 feet long by 35 feet wide, 
6 feet 6 inches high with steel hull having a capacity of 60 tons was constructed 
for use on the canal. All work on the repairs to the Rockfield bascule bridge 
and the construction of concrete counter-weights was fully completed in May last, 
since which time this bridge oas been in satisfactory operation. Just prior to 
the opening of navigation, the entrance to north lock No. 3 became obstructed 
by .the partial collapse of the stone facing of the pivot pier of the St. Gabriel 
bridge. The canal at this point was thoroughly cleaned up and repairs were 
later made to the pier. The roof and trusses of flour shed No. 1 were rebuilt and 
flour shed No. 2, destroyed by fire in November last, was entirely rebuilt. A 
saw and planer mill, fully equipped with all necessary machinery, was erected. 
A 5-ton derrick was constructed and installed with hoisting engine on a flat 
scow. In the Mill Street yard a 10-ton Fairbanks scale was installed. At north 
and south locks Nos. 1 and 2 sixteen direct current motors were replaced by 
alternating current motors to make possible the use of one form of current only 
for power purposes on the canal. In addition to the foregoing, smaller repairs 
have received the customary attention such as the pointing of masonry and 
resetting of coping stones, repairs to and renewal of lock gates, reflooring of 
bridges, repairs to buildings, machinery, transmission lines, roadways etc. 

The dredging fleet, consisting of tug Dandy, dipper dredge No. 2, floating 
clam derrick No. 2, ten scows, one house boat and six row boats underwent the 
usual repairs while in dry dock at Montreal. Two new flat scows were con- 
structed during the winter. Clam derrick No. 2 was employed last season 
in cleaning up the canal bottom above and below the Canadian Pacific Railway 
bridge at Rockfield, and in similar work at several other points on the canal. 

(6) Soulanges Canal 

The entrance to this canal lies 16 miles west of the upper end of the Lachine 
Canal. It is 14 miles in length, has five locks, with a minimum depth of 15 feet, 
and extends from Cascades Point to Coteau Landing, overcoming the Cascades, 
Cedars and Coteau rapids. 

The canal was opened to navigation April 23 and closed December 12, 
being in operation throughout the entire season without serious accidents or 
delay to traffic. 

The resurfacing in asphalted macadam of 14 miles of roadway along the 
northerly side of the canal between Cascades Point and Coteau Landing, which 
had been completed in the previous fiscal year with the exception of a little 
over two miles at the lower end was, during the past season, fully completed. 
Outside the new carpenter shop at Cascades Point, a travelling crane was erected 
for the handling of heavy timber required in lock gate construction. A complete 
set of gates for one lock was constructed, the intention being to gradually renew 
all gates on the canal which have been in continuous service since its completion 
in 1900. Among the smaller repairs and improvements carried out on this 



88 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

canal may be mentioned the renewal of the floors of bridges Nos. 2 and 4 and the 
scraping and painting of four other bridges; the renewal of 3| miles of fencing; 
the renewal of 5 miles of wiring on power transmission and telephone lines; 
the re-inforcing with clay and stone of the south canal bank at Clement's gully; 
the repointing of masonry joints; renewals of and repairs to lock gates; the 
painting of various buildings, mooring and other posts etc., and the thorough 
going over and keeping in repair of all lock gate and other machinery. 

Of the floating plant equipment the tug Carillon was overhauled and painted 
and lesser repairs made to several flat scows. Dipper dredge No. 2 was employed 
for a time at Cascades Point preparing foundation for slip and ways opposite 
to the new carpenter shop. 

(c) Cornwall Canal 

This canal, which lies at the westerly end of a navigable stretch of water 
which extends for 31 miles from the head of the Soulanges canal, is 11J miles 
long with six locks and a minimum depth of 14 feet. It surmounts the Long 
Sault rapids. 

Navigation opened April 22 and closed December 14. Traffic in the 
canal was not impeded through serious accident or other cause during the entire 
season. A few minor accidents however occurred, chief among which may be 
mentioned the colliding of the steamer Glenburnie, of the Great Lakes Trans- 
portation Company, with the swing bridge and rest pier at Mille Roches, causing 
damage to both the span and the pier and considerable delay to highway traffic. 

Of repairs and improvements effected or in progress during the year the 
following may be noted: under contract with Fallon Brothers of Cornwall, 
work has been commenced on the raising of banks, roads and lock wails along 
the canal to a height of from 18 inches to 2 feet above their present level as a 
measure of safety against the possible recurrence of extreme high water, a prob- 
able result of the construction of a submerged weir in the south Sault channel of 
the St. Lawrence river by the St. Lawrence Power Company. This work, 
which is to be financed by the Power Company and carried out under the super- 
vision of this department, only recently begun, will, it is expected, be completed 
by the end of the present calendar year. The upper end of the north entrance 
wall to the guard gates above Lock 20 was reinforced by the laying behind it 
of a block of concrete about 15 feet square and 9 feet deep (approximately 150 
tons in weight). This work was considered necessary as a protection against 
further displacement of the wall from the blows frequently received from large 
vessels. The coping of the southeast retaining wall at lock No. 18 was reset 
along a length of 575 feet, as also the coping of the rest pier at Mille Roches, 
damaged by the steamer. Glenburnie. The mechanism of the swing bridge at 
this point, damaged from the same cause, was also completely gone over and 
repaired. At the Cornwall repair shops, a concrete garage with accomodation for 
two trucks was constructed. Early in the season a new service vessel, the W. A. 
Bowden, to replace the worn out vessel Alert, was launched at Cornwall. The 
fitting up of this vessel was carried out during the past year and she will be in 
commission early in the coming season. The usual repairs to floating plant 
were attended to, roads were kept in good condition, stone protection along canal 
banks was relaid where necessary, buildings repaired, etc. 

(d) Farran's Point Canal 

This canal, together with the Rapide Plat and Galops canals which succeed 
it, form the group known as the "Williamsburg Canals." The length of the 
Farran's Point canal is 1\ miles. It has one lock and is situated 5 miles west of 
the Cornwall canal. 

The navigation season opened April 22 and closed December 14. 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 89 

Small repairs only were found necessary on this canal. These included 
the placing of stone protection on sides of canal prism and repairs to the middle 
gates of lock No. 22 which had been damaged by a collision in the previous 
season. 

(e) Rapide Plat Canal 

This canal extends from the town of Morrisburg to Flagg's bay, a distance 
of 3| miles. It has two locks. 

The navigation season extended from April 22 to December 14. Water 
conditions were unusually favourable and practiclly all vessels were able to run 
the rapids until the last week of September after which about 62 per cent of 
the traffic was obliged to use the canal on the down trip. 

The improvement of the upper entrance to this canal, under contract with 
the A. W. Robertson Co., Ltd., begun in September 1923, was continued through- 
out the navigation season. About 62 per cent of the entire undertaking had 
been completed when work ceased in December last. About 40,000 cubic yards 
of dredging remains yet to be done. 

Among the smaller improvements carried out may be noted the replace- 
ment in concrete of the temporary timber dam across the upper entrance to 
the old headrace north of lock No. 23 at Morrisburg, the rebuilding of the ships' 
ways in the Morrisburg repair yard and the installation of a new 100-gallon 
gasoline tank at the same point, the removal to a new and more suitable site 
of the Morrisburg Custom House and the replacement by reinforced concrete 
poles of the wooden electric light poles on both sides of lock No. 23. 

(/) Galops Canal 

Situated about 4 J miles west of the Rapide Plat canal, the Galops cana 
extends from the village of Iroquois to a point about 1J miles beyond the town 
of Cardinal, a distance of 7J miles. It surmounts the last series of rapids met 
with between Montreal and lake Ontario and has three locks, a lift lock at the 
easterly entrance, a guard lock at the upper entrance and a lift lock beside the 
guard lock for overcoming the Galops rapids only. 

This canal was opened for navigation April 22 and closed December 14. 

Improvements of a minor character only were carried out during the year 
among which were the fabrication at the Cornwall shops and installation of a 
new main steel shaft and pinion and new couplings in the swing bridge at Cardinal, 
complete repairs to the driveway bridge over old lock No. 26 at Cardinal, repairs 
to the main highway along the north side of the canal over a distance of If miles, 
removal of and repairs to lock gates, the relaying of stone protection along the 
canal banks and other necessary works. 

(g) Welland Canal 

This canal, which overcomes the falls of Niagara, lies between Port Dal- 
housie on lake Ontario and Port Colborne on lake Erie. It is 26J miles long, 
has twenty-six locks and, under usual water conditions, provides, like the St. 
Lawrence system of canals, 14 feet of water on lock sills. It is of interest to 
note that on November 29, 1924 a cairn and tablet, erected by the Historic 
Sites and Monuments Board, commemorating the centenary of the turning 
of the fi-st sod in the construction of the original canal, was unveiled near the 
Allanburg bridge on the westerly side of the present canal. 

Navigation in the past fiscal year opened April 16 and closed December 13. 

An increase in traffic was observed amounting to over 12 per cent above 
that of the previous year. A total of 5,361 vessels passed entirely through the 
canal, the upbound and downbound passages being nearly balanced. In addition 
to the foregoing 166 trips were made by vessels to intermediate points on the 
canal. The largest downbound through cargo was 93,700 bushels of wheat or 



90 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

2.S11 tons; the largest upbound cargo 2,650 tons of pulpwood. The increase 
in total freight tonnage over the year before amounted to 34 per cent, the actual 
tonnage carried being 5,037,412, an increase of 30 per cent over the greatest 
previous record in the history of the canal. 

Several accidents occurred during the year by which navigation was tempor- 
arily interrupted. In May the steamer Glenfarn upbound struck and carried 
out both upper gates at lock No. 11. The vessel, forced back by the rush of 
water, then struck the highway swing bridge immediately below materially 
displacing it. Traffic was as a consequence interrupted for a period of sixteen 
hours. On the last day of July the steamer Norman P. Clement while upbound 
struck the lower towpath gate at lock No. 22 unstepping and otherwise damaging 
it and delaying navigation for four and one-half hours. While the steamer 
Keyport, on the downbound trip early in November, was moored in lock No. 15 
which she had just entered, her employees opened the valves of the lower gates 
before the upper gates had been closed. As a result the upper gates were bent 
over by the current through the lock chamber and one of them so damaged that 
a spare gate had to be installed. Traffic was held up for about twelve hours. 

Of the various improvements carried out on this canal during the past 
year the following may be noted : At Port Dalhousie the main travelled roadway 
over canal property was paved in concrete from the easterly side of lock, No. 1 
of the present canal to the junction of Lock and Main streets on the westerly 
side of lock No. 1 of the old canal and from the latter point along Main street 
in a northerly direction to the ferry landing. The work was carried out under 
contract with Roy Honsberger. Responsibility for the future maintenance 
of this improvement will rest with the village corporation. A new timber 
deck scow, fitted with a steel derrick, was completed and launched. A Stoplog 
dam was installed at the regulating weir at Port Dalhousie and the usual minor 
repairs to structures, machinery and plant received attention. 

Old Canal — The Welland canal as originally constructed, between Port 
Dalhousie and Allanburg somewhat to the west of the present canal, has since 
the competion of the latter, been used only for power purposes. It is known 
as the "Old Canal". 

Repairs and improvements carried out during the year included the placing 
of reinforced concrete and timber gate bars at locks Nos. 16 and 20 to take the 
place of the old wooden mitering gates at the upper end of the locks. 

The wooden valve stringers at the weir of lock No. 5 were renewed in re- 
inforced concrete, the wooden bridge over this weir being also replaced by a 
concrete structure. The upper gates of lock No. 1 and the lower gates of lock 
No. 2 were replaced by new and spare gates, the old gates having got beyond 
repair. The canal and reaceways were unwatered at the beginning of the season 
as far down as the lock No. 3 reach and many very necessary repairs were made 
to subaqueous works and mechanism, an opportunity being at the same time 
afforded to various mills to make similar repairs to their equipment. 

Canal Feeder. — This waterway, about 21 miles in lenght, lies between 
Dunnville, 5 miles above the mouth of the Grand river, and a junction with the 
present canal near the town of Welland, there being also a short branch betw een 
Stromness and Port Maitland at the mouth of the Grand river. Built in the 
first place as a source of water supply to the summit level of the original Welland 
canal and used also in former years for purposes of navigation, its is now merely 
kept in a state of repair. . 

The following repairs and improvements were carried out on the canal 
feeder during the past year. The wooden highway swing bridge crossing the 
feeder at Forks road was replaced by a fixed steel span with concrete floor. 
At Inman road, the old wooden highway bridge was replaced by a fixed concrete 
bridge. Between the Bolton road ditch and the feeder, a concrete drainage 
culvert was constructed, the township assuming responsibility for the future 
maintenance of this structure. 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 91 

Port Colborne Elevator. — During the past fiscal year the government elevator 
received 59,489,616 bushels of grain an increase over the previous year of nearly 
3 per cent. Seventy per cent of this grain was from Fort William and the remain- 
der from United States ports. 

The one-million bushel extension to the elevator, increasing its total capacity 
to three million bushels, which was begun in November 1923 under contract 
with E. G. M. Cape, was completed in September last. The installation of 
machinery and other equipment, not included in this contract but carried out by 
the department, was also completed and the new portion of the elevator received 
its first shipment of grain early in November. 

(h) Welland Ship Canal 

This work, which has been in progress since the latter part of the year 1913, 
is now well advanced. A brief summary of the general scheme involved in the 
undertaking will first be presented. 

The proposed ship canal leaves lake Ontario at the original mouth of Ten- 
Mile creek, now known as Port Weller about 3 miles east of Port Dalhousie, 
where a harbour of entry is under construction, and follows an entirely different 
route from the present canal as far south as Allanburg. From here it proceeds 
along the line of the existing canal to a point about one mile north of the village 
of Humberstone, where another diversion about two and one-half miles in length 
is made to the east of the present waterway. The route of the present canal is 
then followed for the final half mile to the lake Erie entrance at Port Colborne. 
The total distance traversed from lake to lake will be 25 miles. The difference 
in level between the two lakes, 325J feet, will be overcome by seven lift locks, 
most of which are now well advanced towards completion, each having a lift 
of 46-| feet. The locks are over 800 feet long and 80 feet wide in the clear and 
will provide a depth of 30 feet of water over the mitre sills. The width of the 
canal prism at bottom is to be 200 feet. A new breakwater, at present under 
construction, will be built at Port Colborne, extending 2,000 feet farther into 
the lake than the existing structure. At Port Weller, the lake Ontario entrance, 
extensive harbour works have now been nearly completed. The route of the 
new canal has been divided for purposes of construction into eight sections 
numbered in order from Port Weller southerly. All of these are now under 
construction with the exception of section No. 6, which it is probable will be 
let next season. 

During the war years the progress of construction work was considerably 
retarded and for some time after this many delays were occasioned through 
labour troubles. For the past four years, however, operations have progressed 
satisfactorily. 

Following is a brief account of the more important work carried out or still 
in hand on the various sections of the canal during the year just ended. 

Section No. 1 — Commencing with the harbour works of Port Weller this 
section extends in a southerly direction, a distance of nearly 3 miles inland, 
and comprises the harbour construction, prism excavation, one lock with weirs 
the construction of two bridges over the canal, etc. 

When work on the present contract with Johnston P. Porter was commenced 
in September 1921, about 30 per cent of the entire undertaking still remained 
unfinished. Owing to the satisfactory progress made by the present contractor, 
work on this section is now rapidly approaching completion, only about 6 per 
cent of the total undertaking remaining still to be finished. 

During the past year the two dredges Delver and Fundy have been employed 
on harbour excavation. A revision in the harbour grades calling for increased 
depth has added somewhat, particularly in the matter of rock excavation, to 
the work originally contemplated. A total of 316,760 cubic yards was removed 
in the season of 1924. In the construction of the dock walls the last three cribs 



92 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

have now been finished and placed in position, two on the west side and one on 
the east. The coping on both sides of the outer entrance and on the west cribs 
of the inner entrance was completed, fifteen cribs on the east wall being still 
in this respect, unfinished. Work on the harbour embankments included the 
placing of upwards of 350,000 cubic yards of rock, excavated at twin locks 
No. 4, along the slopes, both faces of the east embankment and the inner slope 
of the west embankment being nearly completed and about one-third of the 
outer slope. The wall of the boat dock on the east side of the lower entrance to 
the lock has been constructed to within five feet of coping level. At lock No. 1 
the back filling has been completed for the two upper entrance walls, for both 
lock walls and for the lower west entrance wall. The setting of the eight intake 
and discharge valves for this lock, ready for operating equipment, had been 
completed in December last. At the regulating and waste weirs, the floor 
slabs have all been placed except two slabs above the regulating weir. The five 
stoney sluices for this weir are now on hand and are to be placed immediately. 
A test of the efficiency of two of the three main unwatering pumps for the lock, 
recently carried out, proved very satisfactory, the lock being emptied in ten 
hours. There has since been practically no leakage into the lock through the 
unwatering gates from the lake Ontario level. Between June and November, 
two revolving shovels completed the prism excavation and drainage ditch and 
the trimming of the embankment slopes. The pondage area for lock No. 1 will 
be completed with the placing of concrete protection and the sodding of slopes 
during the coming season. 

Section No. 2 — The extent of this section is approximately 4§ miles. The 
work involved comprises the taking out of canal prism and construction of em- 
bankments, the building of locks Nos. 2 and 3 with entrance walls, etc., and the 
substructures of several highway bridges. 

The work on this section is being prosecuted under the same contract as 
that of section No. 1. Under the original pre-war contract about 58 per cent 
of the entire undertaking had been completed. 

All concrete work both on lock No. 2 and its regulating and waste weirs 
has been completed. The backfilling for both lock walls has been placed as 
well as that in rear of the upper entrance wall, but final settlement must be 
awaited before slopes can be trimmed and the work generally finished up. Carle- 
ton street, which crossed the line of the canal about one thousand feet south 
of the lock, has now been diverted to a temporary trestle immediately above 
the lock near the site of bridge No. 3 which has yet to be constructed. The 
excavation of the canal prism from lock No. 3 north was commenced in July 
and was carried through on the east side as far as the Queenston Road after 
which the sloping of this side was completed back to the lock. The west slope 
of the prism remains still to be excavated. Excavation for the lock pit was 
completed by the middle of July. Concrete work on the lock was also carried 
on for a period of over three months and a total of 136,000 cubic yards was placed, 
the work being advanced to within about forty per cent of completion. Work 
on this lock was resumed on March 23 of the present year. The east abutment 
of the regulating weir was completed, but further work will have to be postponed 
until concrete work on the east wali of the lock is more advanced. Foundation 
piles for the weir were driven this year. The present Welland canal crosses 
the new canal immediately south of lock No. 3. The prism cut south of this 
crossing, which had been partially excavated in previous seasons, was unwatered 
early last year and further excavation work proceeded with, chiefly on the east 
side, to within twelve hundred feet of the end of section No. 2, a total of 317,000 
cubic yards being removed down to the level of the final grade. There remain 
about 200,000 cubic yards still to be excavated. 

To summarize the work performed on this section from its commencement 
up to the end of the fiscal year, it may be stated that 78 per cent of the rock 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 93 

excavation has been completed, 91 per cent of the earth excavation, 84.5 per 
cent of the work on watertight embankments and of concrete of all classes 73.5 
per cent. 

Section No. 8. — This section extends southerly from section No. 2 for a 
distance of about 2 miles. The work involved comprises the excavation of 
canal prism and lock sites, the construction of three twin locks in flight and one 
single lock together with masonry approach walls, a core wall for a dam, control 
weirs and other minor structures and the building of a large earth dam at the 
head of the flight locks. 

Since the beginning of July, 1922, work on this section has been carried 
on under contract with the P. Lyall and Sons Construction Company Limited, 
of Montreal. During the past year work has been in progress over the whole 
section both in excavation and in concreting operations. Of the entire under- 
taking, 73 per cent is now completed. North of the site of twin locks No. 4, 
concrete work on which has not yet been started, grading for service tracks, 
amounting to over 35,000 cubic yards, was carried out. At the lock site, upwards 
of 400,000 cubic yards, mostly rock, was removed, being utilized for embankments 
at Port Weller. Concreting operations at both twin locks Nos. 5 and 6 are now 
well advanced. At twin locks No. 5 the east wall has been completed to coping 
levei for about one-half its total length and for a further length of 120 feet is 
about three-quarters completed. The centre wall between these locks is finished 
to coping level for three-quarters of its length and a further length of 60 feet 
half completed. The west wall is complete to coping level for half its length 
with a further length of 240 feet half finished. Twin locks No. 6 are fully com- 
pleted with the exception of a small portion of the south end comprising about 
135 feet in length on the east wall, 120 feet on the centre and 65 feet on the 
west wall, the quantity of concrete still to be placed amounting to only 15 per 
cent of the whole undertaking. In the reach between the head of the three 
flight locks and lock No. 7 the west entrance wall was completed three years 
ago and also the greater part of the excavation. Last season steel sheet piling 
was driven for the northerly 340 feet and wing of the east entrance wall to lock 
No. 7 after which a small amount of excavation work was done and the wing 
and main wall completed to coping level for a total length of 160 feet. At lock 
No. 7 concrete work was carried on from May till December and is now 89 per 
cent completed. From the head of this lock to bridge No. 9, the crossing of the 
Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway, no work was performed last season. 
Between this crossing and the end of the section however, a total of 92,760 cubic 
yards of rock was removed, bringing the prism excavation of this portion of the 
canal to within 3 per cent of completion. 

A summary of the general status of the work on this section shows that 
90 per cent of the rock excavation is now finished, 72 per cent of the earth excava- 
tion, 74 per cent of the work on watertight embankments and of all classes of 
concrete work, 55 per cent. 

Section No. 4- — The extent of this section is about 2 miles southerly from 
the end of section No. 3 or from the southerly end of the town of Thorold to 
the northerly end of the village of Allanburg. The work involved comprises 
the excavation of canal prism and for foundations of guard-gates and weir, 
the construction of Shriner's and Beaver Dams culverts, the coastruction of a 
new water-works reservoir for the town of Thorold, the relocation of a branch 
of the Canadian National Railways, and various other lesser undertakings. 

This section is included with section No. 3 under the P. Lyall & Sons Con- 
struction Company's contract. 

The present Welland canal crosses the line of the ship canal about three- 
quarters of a mile south of the head of lock No. 7. In the turning basin area, 
just north of the present canal, excavation operations were carried on in 1924 in 
conjunction with those north of this area which have already been noted under 



94 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

"Section No. 3". This part of the prism is completed so far as is now permissible 
without encroachment on the northerly side of the Welland canal. The remain- 
der of the work can be proceeded with when it becomes possible to flood the 
upper entrance of lock No. 7. The siphon culverts for Shriner's and Beaver Dams 
crooks were both completed last season, the former is situated at the crossing of the 
present canal, the latter about three-quarters of a mile farther south. On the 
east side of the prism, embankment was constructed for a length of 600 feet south 
of the guard lock site. Excavation work was carried on along the canal prism from 
a point one-quarter of a mile south of the Welland canal crossing to the end of 
Section No. 4, a distance of about lj miles, the total quantity of material removed 
on this stretch amounting to close on half a million cubic yards. The injunction 
obtained by the Pilkington Glass Company in 1923, by which the contractors 
had been restrained from carrying on blasting operations at the south end of 
the section in the vicinity of the works of this company, came to an end last 
August when the Glass Company ceased operations at this plant. For the 
remainder of the fiscal year, work on the prism in this area was actively carried 
on and good progress made. Owing to the filling up of Beaver Dams pond, 
which had previously acted as a storage basin on the east side of the canal, 
incidental to construction work in this vicinity, the normal flow in the creek has 
considerably increased. This extra flow has been much impeded by the culvert 
by means of which this creek is passed under the old Welland canal before 
discharging into Gibson's lake. As a result, areas in the creek valley have been 
flooded at all seasons to levels previously reached only during freshet times. 
To relieve this condition, it was decided to remove the old culvert making it 
an open waterway. Work was commenced in November, 1924, and carried on 
until March when flood conditions necessitated the temporary suspension of 
operations. The roof of the culvert has now been entirely uncovered and its 
removal will be taken in hand as soon as conditions permit. 

Section No. 5. — This section is about 3J miles in length extending from 
Allanburg to Port Robinson. The work involved comprises rock and earth 
excavation and dredging, the construction of the substructure of bridges at 
Allanburg and Port Robinson and small quantities of concrete and stone protec- 
tion along the canal banks. 

The work on this section has been under contract with the Canadian Dredg- 
ing Company, Limited, for the past four years. 

Dredging operations were continued last season at various points on the 
section and the entire area was swept except at bridges Nos. 11 and 12 where 
the prism area cannot be excavated until the present bridges are removed. The 
north half of the section has been found to have been taken out to its correct 
elevation at all points. On the south half however, excavated under the previous 
contract, a considerable amount of silting has taken place varying in depth at 
different points. It is proposed to leave the cleaning up of this area to be in- 
cluded in the contract for section No. 6. Sodding was carried on on both banks 
of the prism and this work has now been completed except at the sites of the two 
bridges at either end of the section. Stone protection for banks was also com- 
pleted except that which will be required at the two bridges already mentioned. 

Section No. 6. — This section lies between Port Robinson and Welland, its 
length being slightly over 3^ miles. The work to be performed will include the 
dredging and enlargement of the present canal prism, the diversion of the Welland 
river, which crosses the line of the canal at the north end of the town of Welland, 
by means of a large siphon culvert, the building of watertight banks, concrete 
protection for slopes, etc. 

Xo work has as yet been done on this section of the canal. It is expected 
however that tenders for the work will be called for during the coming season. 

Section No. 7. — This section, which is about 6 miles in length, extends 
from the town of Welland to the northerly limits of the village of Humberstone. 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 95 

The work to be performed will include the dredging and enlargement of the prism 
of the existing canal to a point about one mile north of the end of the section, 
where the new line diverges from the old, the excavation of the new line from 
this point to a junction again with the present canal, the construction of five 
bridges, the building of retaining and dock wails at both ends of the section, slope 
protection works, etc. 

A contract covering the work involved was let December 30, 1924, to the 
Canadian Dredging Company, but as yet little has been done beyond a small 
amount of preliminary work. This has included the erection of camps and 
shops, grading for a spur line from the Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto Railway, 
the clearing of about 40 acres of ground and the erection of dump trestles. 

Section No. 8. — This section which extends from the north end of the village 
of Humberstone to deep water in lake Erie is about 3 miles in length. The work 
to be performed will consist in the excavation of a new route from the" north end 
of the section for a distance of about 1| miles, the dredging and enlargement of 
the present canal for the remainder of the route, the construction of guard lock 
No. 8 with entrance walls, etc., the construction of three bridges, the erection 
of various harbour works and numerous ■ other minor undertakings. 

The contract for the work on this section was awarded to the A. W. Robert- 
son Company Ltd., February 27, 1924. 

Early in the month of April following, construction work was started and 
has since been prosecuted in a very energetic manner. By the end of November 
upwards of 400,000 cubic yards of earth, or about 37 per cent of the total, had 
been taken out on the land division. Following the stripping of the rock, drilling 
and blasting operations were commenced. Early in October rock excavation 
started and has continued ever since. A total of 311,624 cubic yards has been 
taken out which represents about 15 per cent of the total rock work. At the 
south end of the land division, trouble experienced from seepage has been over- 
come by the sinking of a sump to 20 feet below grade and the installation of 
a centrifugal pump. To permit of excavation work being carried on south of 
Fraser street, Port Colborne, the Canadian National Railway station and its 
auxiliary buildings have all been removed from their former site and a new station 
and other facilities erected on the west side of the present canal and direct 
connection made with the Buffalo division of the railway. On the harbour 
division of this section, work was carried on from the beginning of May to 
December. A considerable area was drilled and blasted after which two dredges 
removed upwards of 50,000 cubic yards of rock. Excavation work on the 
harbour represents to date about 15 per cent of the entire undertaking. Six 
concrete cribs for the breakwater, constructed at Port Maitland, were trans- 
ported to Port Colborne by water, placed in position and filled. In money 
value the amount of work performed on the contract for section No. 8 now 
amounts to 14 per cent of the whole undertaking. 

Construction Railway. — All tracks and structures were maintained in efficient 
condition throughout the year. 4J miles of 65-lb. rail were replaced by 85-lb. 
rail resulting in a noticeable reduction in the cost of track maintenance. No 
delays to traffic occurred through accidents. The total traffic handled by the 
railway during the year amounted to 121,776 cars, this volume being about 
double that of the year before. 

Laboratory, etc. — A total quantity of 654,608f barrels of cement was received 
and accepted during the year and distributed to various parts of the canal. 
Tests were made of all cement, gravel, sand, crushed stone and concrete before 
being put into the work. Tests as to the durability of paints for various classes 
of work were also carefully carried out. 

Miscellaneous Contracts. — The question of the supply of Douglas fir timber 
for the unwatering gates of locks Nos. 4 and 8 received careful consideration. 



96 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Efforts to secure suitable timber from British Columbia having failed, the 
contract for this supply was eventually placed with the Ostrander Railway & 
Timber Company of Ostrander, Wash. The greater part of this timber, amount- 
ing to 810,000 feet B.M., has now been delivered, the sizes of sticks varying from 
31 inches by 41 inches to 31 inches by 47 inches, all in 51-foot lengths. 

A contract for a pumping plant for lock No. 8, similar to that installed at 
lock No. 1, has been let to the John Inglis Company of Toronto. The delivery 
of this equipment is expected early next season. 

For the operating machinery for the valves of lock No. 1, a contract has 
been placed with the Engineering & Machine Works of St. Catharines and an 
early delivery is looked for. 

In addition to the foregoing, smaller contracts for the supply of other 
general equipment such as sluice gates, valves, structural steel, timber, plate 
girder spans, etc., have been entered into with various manufacturers. 

General Summary. — For the various classes of work involved in the con- 
struction of the entire canal, the following percentages are now estimated as 
having been completed: rock excavation, 43 per cent; earth excavation, 48 per 
cent; watertight embankments, 70 per cent; concrete, 52 per cent; and rein- 
forcing steel, 62 per cent. 

(i) Sault Ste. Marie Canal 

This canal provides communication between lakes Huron and Superior, 
surmounting by a single lock the rapids of the St. Mary's river. It is entirely 
within Canadian territory. 

The canal was opened for traffic April 19 and closed December 15 
a period of 241 days. The total registered tonnage of vessels which passed 
through the lock showed a decrease of 23 per cent from the figures of the year 
before; the freight tonnage was less by 28 per cent. For the Canadian and 
American canals taken together the decreases in traffic for all vessels were 16 
per cent for registered tonnage and 21 per cent for freight. Traffic in Canadian 
vessels only through both canals showed decreases in registered and freight 
traffic of 8 and 13 per cent respectively. 

There were no serious accidents during the entire season. Two vessels 
which got out of control and became grounded above the canal were again 
floated within a few hours. 

Improvements made on the canal during the year included the renewal in 
concrete, for a length of 300 feet, of the top of the upper south pier, a continuation 
of the work of the previous season. Similar work will be gone on with during 
the coming summer. Repairs were also made to the upper north pier, originally 
constructed with a concrete top but badly broken up by continued blows from 
passing vessels. A length of 200 feet of the rear wall of this pier was renewed 
and portions along the front wall patched. A small amount of this work still 
remains to be completed during the coming season. 

During the spring of this year soundings were taken over the whole of the 
Vidal shoal cut about two miles west of the lock in tha vicinity of the junction 
of the Canadian and American west entrance channels. The American channel 
had been dredged and widened last summer. The soundings taken over the 
Canadian channel demonstrated that it was in good safe condition. At the 
angle of junction of the two channels a buoy is located, operated by the Cana- 
dian Department of Marine and Fisheries, which does duty for both entrances. 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 97 

2. OTTAWA AND RIDEAU RIVERS 

(a) Ste. Anne Lock 

This canal surmounts the Ste. Anne rapids between lie Perrot and the island 
of Montreal at the junction of lake St. Louis with the Ottawa river. It consists 
of two parallel locks, the old and the new, each with a lift of 3 feet. The old 
lock (now disused) has a depth of only 6 feet, but in the new lock there is 9 feet 
of water on the sills. 

Navigation opened May 1 and closed November 30. There were no 
accidents or delays to traffic during this period. 

No extensive repairs or improvements were found necessary but the follow- 
ing smaller items of work were carried out: — The roof of shed No. 5 was covered 
with galvanized iron and a portable forge installed in the shed. The river face 
of the upper wing dam was replanked for a length of 50 feet. In connection 
with the electric motors operating the lock gates, an underground cable 75 feet 
in length was laid. The inside of the Overseer's dwelling was painted as well 
as the wood shed connected therewith and shutters on all buildings. Rubble 
walls below the new lock were pointed, lockgates scraped and painted, the 
chamber of the new lock cleaned out and a variety of other small matters attended 
to. 

A contribution of $100,000 provided under Parliamentary vote, was made by 
the department towards the construction of the Provincial highway bridge connect- 
ing He Perrot with the Island of Montreal over the lower entrance to the canal, 
it being conceded that the existence of the canal necessitated both a longer and 
higher bridge with consequent increase in the cost of the structure. 

(6) Carillon and Grenville Canals 

From the Ste. Anne lock to the foot of the Carillon canal is a navigable 
stretch of water 27 miles in length through the lake of Two Mountains and the 
Ottawa river. The Carillon canal, which is f of a mile in length with two locks 
giving a total lift of 16 feet, surmounts the next rise in the river level produced 
both by the Carillon dam at the head of the canal and the natural fall of the 
river below. 

The Long Sault rapids, 6 miles above the Carillon canal, are surmounted 
by the Grenville canal, 5f miles in length with five locks. Both canals provide 
a depth of 9 feet of water over the lock sills. 

These canals were opened to navigation May 1 and closed November 30. 
No accidents occurred to delay traffic nor was any damage done to canal struc- 
tures. 

During the year the tug Shirley was purchased and after being put in a 
thorough state of repair was relaunched. No extensive improvements to the 
canal or its structures were found necessary. The work of general maintenance 
however included the stopping of two leaks at different points in the canal 
embankment, the placing of booms at the upper entrance, making and setting 
new snubbing posts, renewing gate panels at locks Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the painting 
of various buildings and bridges and one scow as well as repairs to roadways, 
fences, transmission lines, bridges, culverts, buildings, etc. 

(c) Rideau Canal 

This canal connects with the Ottawa river about 56 miles above the head 
of the Grenville canal and provides a waterway between the cities of Ottawa 
and Kingston. It consists of a series of natural watercourses joined by artificial 
cuttings, is 126J miles long and has forty-seven locks with a minimum depth of 
5 feet. It rises by thirty-three locks to a summit in the upper Rideau lake, 
from which body of water it descends to the level of lake Ontario by means of 
fourteen locks. 

6059—7 



98 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

Navigation opened both at Ottawa and Kingston Mills May 1 and closed 
at Ottawa November 30 and at Kingston November 28. 

During the past year an ample supply of water was available for the naviga- 
tion of all parts of the canal. 

The total number of lockages for the season was 22,997, a slight decrease 
from the previous year's record. 

The principal repairs and improvements carried out during the year may 
be stated as follows: — At lock No. 3 of the Ottawa station the old masonry 
side walls were taken down and rebuilt in concrete blocks. A small concrete 
protection wall 50 feet in length was erected at the easterly approach to the swing 
bridge at Hogsback. The waste weir at Black Rapids, which was old and in 
bad repair, was taken down and rebuilt in concrete. As a means of eliminating 
the leakage in the south bank of the waste weir at the Long Island locks, a 
concrete core wall was constructed. The timber piers of the Kars bridge were 
rebuilt from the low water line. At Nicholson's locks extensive repairs made to 
the segmental retaining dam included the reinforcement of this old masonry 
structure by a concrete facing. A new steel highway bridge of 58 feet span was 
erected at Merrickville across the snye, replacing the former structure, a contract 
for the work being let to the Sarnia Bridge Company. Before installing the 
new bridge, the old abutments were widened and reinforced. The long concrete 
dam at this lock station was repaired along the face of the north wall and re- 
inforced with steel protection plates. At Poonamalie a new steel and concrete 
floor was laid over the waste weir in the upper cut. An automatic water-gauging 
station was installed also at this point. At Beveridge's lock station a concrete 
foundation was placed under the lockmaster's house. On the Perth branch 
the concrete culvert, commenced last season, was completed. The old timber 
waste weir at "The Narrows" station was taken down aud rebuilt in concrete. 
At Jones' Falls the abutments of the long bridge below the locks were rebuilt 
in concrete. At Brass's Point the old timber swing span of the bridge was 
taken down and replaced by a new one, the pivot p ; er also being rebuilt. The 
approaches to the swing span at lower Brewer's lock station were rebuilt and a 
new rest pier for the swing span installed. At Kingston Mills the lower mitre 
sill of the upper lock was rebuilt in concrete faced with steel. At all stations 
lock-gate repairs and replacements were attended to where necessary, stop 
logs were renewed, masonry was repointed and numerous other minor repairs 
received such attention as required for safe maintenance. 

The floating plant equipment of this canal , consisting of the dredge Rideau 
and tugs Agnes and Loretta with several dump scows, was in constant employ- 
ment throughout the season. Dredging was done along the face of the new 
wall at Hartwell's locks and in the channel below the lower cut at Washburn. 
The entire plant was thoroughly gone over and repaired while in winter quarters 
in the Ottawa canal basin. 

3. RICHELIEU RIVER NAVIGATION 

(a) St. Ouks Lock and Dam 

At a point on the Richelieu 14 miles above the town of Sorel the level of 
that river has been raised 5 feet by a dam. This difference in level is overcome 
by the St. Ours lock. There is 7 feet of water on the upper lock sills. 

The lock was opened to navigation May 1 and closed November 30. 

Below the dam at the foot of the island a gate basin was excavated by dipper 
dredge No. 2 in which to sink spare gates for the lower end of the lock and a num- 
ber of concrete blocks were made for sinking purposes. The panels of the upper 
gates were replaced by spare ones and the old panels placed in readiness for 
repairs. Four stop logs were reinforced with iron rods to form a winter bridge 
over the lock and numerous other lesser repairs attended to. . 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 99 

(b) Chambly Canal 

Between the St. Ours lock and Chambly Basin, a distance of 32 miles, 
the river is navigable with a depth of 7 feet. The Chambly canal, which enters 
at this point, is 12 miles in length and has nine locks. It surmounts all the 
rapids between Chambly and St. Johns, thus establishing communication with 
lake Champlain. The locks provide a depth of 6| feet of water over sills. 

The canal was opened to traffic May 1 and closed November 30 and was 
operated without accident or delay to havigation during the entire season. 

The most important works carried out in the past year were the construc- 
tion along the inside face of the guide pier at the upper entrance to the canal 
at St. Johns of a concrete wall 1400 feet long and 8 feet high, containing about 
1200 cubic yards, and the resurfacing in water-bound macadam with earth 
shoulders of the highway along the west side of the canal opposite to St. Therese 
island through the Parish of St. Luc for a distance of about lj miles in com- 
pletion of similar work on adjoining portions of this road which had been in 
progress during the past three years. Lesser works performed included the 
dredging of the upper entrance at St. Johns to a depth of 12 feet at the centre 
and 7 feet along wharves, the repairing of the wharf opposite to the canal shop 
and lengthening the fender piece by 250 feet, the relaying of 20 miles of riprap 
wall along canal banks, repairing the surface of the tow-path between lock No. 9 
and bridge No. 3, the cleaning and deepening of ditches between locks Nos. 5 
and 7 and bridges Nos. 4" and 5, the renewal in reinforced concrete of the breast 
wall and bottom and lower apron of lock No. 2 and a similar renewal of 25 feet 
of the wooden apron at the lower end of lock No. 6, and the usual general repairs 
to buildings, transmission lines, lock gates, fences and floating plant. 

4. LAKE ONTARIO TO GEORGIAN BAY 

(a) Murray Canal 

This canal, which is an open waterway 80 feet in width, with 11 feet depth 
at low water, across the isthmus of the Prince Edward County peninsula, con- 
necting the bay of Quinte with lake Ontario, is without locks. 

Navigation opened April 15 and closed December 9. No delays, due to 
accident or other cause, occurred during the season. 

Repairs of a minor nature only were carried out. These included the renewal 
of about 110 lineal feet of stone protection which had been washed out in the 
previous season, the relaying of 1300 lineal feet of stone protection at other 
points, the construction of a small outbuilding near the canal house, the regrading 
of a portion of the highway on the north side of the canal, and the cleaning of 
ditches, repairs to fencing, etc. 

(6) Trent Canal 

The route of the Trent canal, as now in operation or under construction, 
lies between Trenton, on the bay of Quinte, where direct connection is made 
with lake Ontario, and Port Severn or Honey Harbour, on Georgian bay, from 
which the waters of the Great Lakes are accessible. The canal is made up of 
a series of lakes and rivers connected by relatively short lengths of artificial 
cuttings. Connection between the water levels of the various reaches is effected 
by locks. The through route may be briefly described as follows: Between 
Trenton and Rice lake the canal follows the line of the Trent river. Passing 
through Rice lake it eaters the Otonabee river, the route of which is followed 
to its source in Katchiwano lake. From this lake the line of the canal passes 
in succession through Clear lake, Stoney lake, Lovesick lake, Buckhorn lake, 
Pigeon lake, Sturgeon lake and Cameron lake to the west side of Balsam lake. 



100 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

From here connection is made by an artificial cutting with a small lake about 
two miles westward, and from the latter lake another cutting makes connection 
with Cranberry lake. From the south end of Cranberry lake connection is 
made with lake Simcoe by another artificial cutting. Passing through lake 
Simcoe the route of the canal continues to the Severn river, the line of which is 
followed to the Georgian bay outlets at Port Severn and Honey Harbour. From 
Trenton the canal rises to a summit at Balsam lake, the level of which is about 
597 feet above that of lake Ontario. From Balsam lake to Georgian bay theie 
is a fall of 262 feet. On the westerly portion of the route of the canal, or between 
lake Couchiching and Georgian bay, various works are under construction, 
a description of which will be found, under the subheading Canal under Con- 
struction, farther on in this report. When completed, the total length of the 
canal from lake to lake will be about 236 miles. 

Canal in Operation 

Since the formal opening to traffic on June 3, 1918 of that portion of the 
canal w^hich lies between Trenton and Rice lake, the extent of the navigable 
through route in operation may be stated as 203.6 miles, namely, between 
Trenton, on the bay of Quinte and Washago at the head of lake Couchiching. 
In addition to this is the Scugog branch, 35 miles in length, from Sturgeon lake 
to Port Perry via the Scugog river and lake, and various other navigable channels 
aggregating in all about 60 miles. The total extent of canal and canalized 
waters maintained in operation is therefore slightly under 300 miles. For 
purposes of operation the main route of the canal is now classified under the 
following divisions: — The Ontario-Rice lake division (lower section) from 
Trenton to a point three miles beyond Glen Ross, the Ontario-Rice lake division 
(upper section) from three miles beyond Glen Ross to the C.N.R. swing bridge 
near Hastings, the Rice lake-Bobcaygeon division from the latter point to 
Bobcaygeon, the Bobcaygeon-Balsam lake division from Bobcaygeon to the 
west side of Balsam lake, The Balsam-Simcoe division from Balsam lake to 
lake Simcoe and lastly the navigable route through lakes Simcoe and Couch- 
ching to the end of deep water at the northerly end of the latter lake. 

The improvement in the channel of the Otonabee river, begun in 1915, is 
now nearly completed. Operations in this connection were carried out during 
the past season by the two dredges Fenelon and Auburn, the former working 
at Whitefield, T.A.S. Park and Robinson's island, the latter at the lower entrance 
to lock No. 19, at Latimer's, Piney Plains, Stewart's, Braundport and White- 
field's. The dredge Auburn was also engaged in excavating a centre channel 
through the remains of the old railway bridge across Rice lake and in removing 
obstructions in the channels at Harwood and Hiawatha. At locks Nos. 4 and 
13, lockmasters' dwellings were constructed. In connection with the construction 
of a new canal shop at Peterborough on the site heretofore occupied by the 
storehouse, some preliminary work was carried out. The store house and black- 
smith shop w T ere moved to new sites and the foundation wall of the new shop 
completed. Work on this building, which will be of one storey, 30 feet by 90 
feet, will be continued this year. Below lock No. 26 at Lakefield, the work of 
widening and deepening the river channel for a distance of about 1100 feet was 
commenced, drilling and blasting operations being now practically completed. 
The dredging of the material will begin as soon as the spring freshet subsides. 
The work of constructing a new dam in concrete to replace the dilapidated 
wooden dam on the Gull river at Norland was commenced in August last. 
This undertaking is now practically completed, there being only a small amount 
of concrete still to place, forms to remove and the old dam to demolish. The 
structure consists of a central spillway flanked on either side by a log sluice 
and regulating sluice. At Kashagawi lake, the dam which was nearly finished 
in 1923, has now r been completed. Repairs were also made to dams at Mississ- 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 101 

auga lake, Scott's Mills and Bass lake. Of lesser improvements carried out 
during the year the following may be noted: At Wallace Point the river pier 
and superstructure of the bridge, which had been damaged by collision with 
the dredge Auburn, was repaired by the Ontario Bridge Company. Repairs 
were made both to the substructure and superstructure of the Burleigh Falls 
bridge. At Bobcaygeon the circular ballast walls of the highway swing bridge, 
which had become worn down, were rebuilt and reinforced at the top with angle 
irons. New decks or floors were laid on ten bridges and six bridges at various 
points were painted. Repairs were made to concrete entrance walls at locks 
Nos. 10, 15 and 16, and repairs to the breast wall at lock No. 27. An investiga- 
tion into the cause of failure in the air supply at the Peterborough lift lock 
was carried out and temporary repairs were made. A concrete top was laid on 
the crib wharf at Dunnett's Landing and smaller repairs were made to wharves 
at Gore's Landing and various other points. Repairs to dams were made at 
locks Nos. 23, 24 and 25. Buoys were placed in Rice lake to mark the new 
centre channel through the old railway bridge. New lock gates for Burleigh 
Falls, Fenelon Falls and Young's Point were either completed or partly construct- 
ed during the year. Materials for the construction of a small concrete dam at 
Swamp lake were transported to the site during the winter and work on this 
structure will be carried on next season. The Hydro-Electric Power Commis- 
sion's development adjacent to lock No. 10 was completed during the year and 
put into commission. Stream measurements were carried out at twenty-one 
different stations, thirty-five meter readings being taken and thirty-six visits 
made to gauges. In connection with this work new automatic gauges were in- 
stalled at Pengelley's and McCracken's on Rice lake and at Glen Ross on the 
Trent river. The floating plant equipment of the canal was maintained in 
good order, important repairs being made to the vessels and tugs Bessie Butler, 
Bob Hall, J.B. McColl and Harwood, to the dredges Fenelon and Auburn and 
to scows and various other units of the plant. 

During the 1924 season the number of recorded lockages on the canal was 
16,353. This figure is 6J per cent in excess of that of the best previous year, 
1922, and 16J per cent in excess of the 1923 record. 

Canal Under Construction 

That portion of the Trent canal which has not yet been formally opened 
for operation and on which various projected works of construction are still 
in contemplation lies, as already noted, between Washago, at the head of lake 
Couchiching and Honey Harbour and Port Severn on Georgian bay. It is 
known as the "Severn Division" and for convenience has been divided into three 
sections, the Port Severn section, between Port Severn on Matchedash bay 
and Gloucester pool; section No. 1, from Honey Harbour to Big Chute on the 
Severn river; and section No. 2, extending from McDonald's chute to the head 
of lake Couchiching. In addition to the foregoing must be noted also the as 
yet incomplete canalization of the Holland river from Cook's bay, at the south- 
erly end of lake Simcoe, to the town of Newmarket, a distance of about 12| miles, 
known as the ' 'Holland river division". 

During the past season dredging operations were continued on the Severn 
division at various points between Washago and Portage bay, by the Randolph 
Macdonald Company. Since the enlargement of the marine railways to provide 
for 15-ton boats up to 65 feet in length, the improvement of the river channel 
at many points has become a matter of urgent necessity. There having been 
from year to year some uncertainty in the prospect of this work being proceeded 
with, the policy followed in its prosecution has been to make small improve- 
ments at all the more dangerous spots in the channel rather than to complete 
the work of widening and deepening at any one point. With this end in view, 
operations were carried on during the navigation season of 1924 at the following 

6059-8 



102 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

points: Near Washago rock work both in drilling and dredging was performed 
over five areas, a water depth of 6 feet being secured. At Monahan's Point, 
where the Severn river enters Sparrow lake, the cut in soft material previously- 
taken out, was considerably widened and deepened to 7J feet as a precaution 
against silting from the river. Similar work was also done at RoehilPs Point 
where an adequate channel 7| feet in depth has now been secured. At Sparrow 
lake chute, formerly one of the most difficult spots on the river to navigate, the 
river is divided by an island into main and back channels. The former has now 
been made comparatively safe for vessels up to about 6 feet draught, while the 
latter has been sufficiently cleared and deepened to cause considerable diminu- 
tion in the current of the navigation channel. About a quarter of a mile farther 
down, two dangerous humps of rock were discovered, one of which was removed 
and the other buoyed. Portage bay cut, which had not been fully completed 
when contract w T ork ceased six years ago, has been considerably improved during 
the past three years. At the close of last season both ends of this cut had been 
so dredged as to provide a through channel of 6 feet draught and ample width. 
At the Swdft Rapids concrete dam there are in all eleven sluices. Three of them 
are of the submerged venturi type. As noted in last year's report, two of these 
sluices were repaired in the summer of 1923. Last summer all three sluices 
were unwatered and examined. The two already repaired were found to be in 
perfect condition. The remaining sluice, the steel tube lining of which was also 
found to require attention, was repaired in a manner similar to that employed 
in the previous season; loose rivets were removed and holes plugged, patch 
plates applied where required, damaged joints electrically welded, and all voids 
grouted. To still further lessen the effects of intense vibration when the sub- 
merged sluices are in operation, the three vertical air pipes previously installed 
between the sluices and the tunnel to overcome this condition, have now all 
been connected with a 22-inch diameter pipe which exteads along the roof of 
the tunnel and terminates in a vertical shaft with an outlet above the deck of 
the dam. At the power house at this point certain items of work, consisting 
in the completion of the copper cornice and the erection of a brick penthouse in 
place of the temporary wooden structure, which had not been carried out at the 
termination of the contract, were fully completer! last season. A fireproof 
storehouse, two storeys high with a concrete foundation and floor, 24 feet by 
66 feet in area, was also erected at the site of the Swift Rapids dam. This build- 
ing will be used for the housing of various items of plant and construction mater- 
ial formerly distributed at various points. At the same site a small public 
lavatory was also constructed for the convenience of summer tourists. General 
repairs were made to the marine railways both at Swift Rapids and Big Chute. 
These consisted in the ballasting, lining and surfacing of tracks, timber re- 
newals in cribs, etc. Owing to the fall in the water level of Georgian bay, which 
has been noticeable for some years past, navigation between Port Severn and 
Gloucester pool has been seriously impeded at the site of a shoal a short distance 
below the lock. To remedy this condition the channel at this point was, early 
in the 1924 season, both widened and deepened. There is now provided a 
depth of 7 feet 8 inches over a channel 34 feet in width. At the Narrows immedi- 
ately below Big Chute work was also done in widening and deepening the 
channel, in completion of the previous year's undertaking. All this excavation 
was through granite rock. As a result of the raising of the water in Gloucester 
pool, certain spots on the colonization road near the head of Go Home bay had 
become flooded. On receipt of complaints from the Provincial Superintendent 
of Colonization Roads, this matter was investigated and ultimately the low spots 
were raised and a small wooden bridge erected connecting the road on both 
sides of the stream. At the outlet of Go Home Lake a small concrete dam was 
built, with a single stoplog sluice, as a means of controlling a considerable flow 
of water from the Gloucester pool level which had recently been found to exist. 
A motor boat hull, supplied by the Peterborough Canoe Company with com- 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 103 

plete fittings and 20 H.P. Kermath engine was purchased during the year and 
will be used for inspection and other purposes on the Severn river. 

At Holland Landing on the Holland river division, a small amount of filling 
was done along the back of the north wall of the lock to remove a pool of stag- 
nant water complaints concerning which had been frequently made both by 
the Provincial Health Officer and local residents. In addition to this, the 
highway bridge over this lock and that on the 2nd Concession road of East 
Gwillimbury, which crosses the next lock south of Holland Landing, were re- 
floored. 

On that portion of the canal now in regular operation, namely between 
Trenton and Washago, certain works have also been performed by the construc- 
tion forces. At Campbellford, on the lower section of the Ontario-Rice lake 
division, the installation of automatic electrically operated sluice gate mechanism, 
under contract with the Canadian General Electric Company, was completed in 
July last. The sluices may now be operated either entirely by hand or electric- 
ally under hand control or automatically. Under the latter system of control 
a rise in the water of about six inches above allowable maximum elevation will 
cause the mechanism to be set in motion opening the sluice gates and closing 
them again when the water level has been sufficiently reduced. An electric 
lighting system for the highway bridge at this point was installed by the same 
contractors. At Young's Point, on the Rice lake-Bob cay geon division of the 
canal, the new concrete dam, replacing the former timber structure, work on which 
has been in progress since March 1923 under contract with F. R. Wilford & Com- 
pany, was completed last season. The entire structure at this point now consists 
of four power supply sluices of the Canada Cement Company at the westerly 
end and nine regulating and log sluices and dam with a concrete deflecting wall 
on the easterly side of the river. The first dam constructed on this site was built 
about the year 1830 and reconstructed in 1885. The rebuilding of lock No. 27 
at Young's Point is now in contemplation. Additional land required for the 
new lock has already been expropriated, construction materials and machinery 
have been ordered and plans have been prepared. It is expected that work on the 
new structure will be started near the close of the coming season of navigation. 

5. St. Peter's Canal 

The St. Peter's canal, which was constructed between the years 1912 and 
1917, connects the Bras d'Or lakes with St. Peter's bay on the southeast coast of 
Cape Breton island. It consists of a tidal lock 300 feet in length and 48 feet 
in width and provides for a minimum depth of water on the lock sills of 18 feet. 

During the past season of navigation this canal was in operation between 
April 23, 1924, and January 7, 1925. The total number of vessels making 
use of the lock was 1,783, an increase of 369, or about 26 per cent, over the record 
of the year before. The entire season was passed without accident or delay to 
navigation. 

The deepening of the lake entrance to the canal, the necessity for which 
has for some time been apparent, was begun last August. The work, it is expected, 
will be completed this year. In May, 1923, a portion of the face of the crib- 
work, about 135 feet in length, along the west side of the lake entrance to the 
canal, gave way. As the whole structure was in bad repair, it was decided to 
renew it for its entire length of 436 feet. A contract covering the work involved 
was let to the Atlantic Dredging Company in March, 1924, and operations were 
begun the following July. The removal of the old cribwork, and the preparation 
of suitable foundation as well as the erection of a portion of the new structure 
proceeded for the remainder of the open season. Operations will be resumed 
this year as soon as the ice has cleared and it is expected that the work will be 
entirely completed by the end of September. Small repairs were carried out 



104 DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

as usual. These included the repair and reinforcing of the floor of the freight 
shed at the Atlantic entrance which had broken down under heavy loading, 
the painting of lock gates and machinery and the removal by a diver from the 
lockgates of barnacles and mussels. 

6. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS 

(a) Hungry Bay and Ste. Barbe Dykes 

These dykes extend westward aiong the south shore of lake St. Francis 
from the upper entrance of the Beauharnois canal for a distance of about 7 miles. 
They are maintained as a protection against the waters of the lake, the level 
of which was raised when the canal was constructed. It may here be mentioned 
that since the opening of the Soulanges canal in 1899 the Beauharnois canal has 
ceased to be used for navigation and is under lease for power purposes oniy. 
The Hungry bay dyke has been in existence since 1856. The top of this dyke 
is maintained as a road. The Ste. Barbe dyke was constructed in 1889. At 
various places along the lake shore, protection walls have been built outside 
the dykes. 

The road along the Hungary bay dyke was resurfaced with broken stone 
and afterwards oiled for a distance of about lj miles westward from Knight's 
Point, while for a further distance of half a mile it was oiled only. A culvert 
under the road was lowered to improve drainage. West of the Grand He the 
road was raised and macadamized for a length of 240 feet. At five different 
points in the Parish of Ste. Barbe, the lake shore road was raised and gravelled 
for an aggregate length of a mile and a half. Smaller repairs were attended 
to as usual, such as the cutting of weeds along the dyke slopes, cleaning ditches, 
repairing bridges, fences, etc. 

(6) St. Lawrence Ship Canal 

For many years the question of the ultimate enlargement of the St. Lawrence 
canal system between lake Ontraio and Montreal has been studied by the engin- 
eers of this department, and much data relating thereto has been obtained. 

During recent years the work of completing definite plans for such an enter- 
prise became necessary in order to enable the department to deal intelligently 
with proposals, by private corporations, for the development of isolated water- 
powers which might seriously conflict with any reasonable development of the 
navigation and power potentialities of the river as a whole. Under this impetus, 
plans were evolved for a comprehensive development of the upper section of the 
river. 

Early in the fiscal year a board of engineers was appointed by the Canadian 
Government to review the Wooten-Bowden report of 1921 and to report on 
the cost of a through deepwater route from the head of the Great Lakes to the 
sea. The members of this board are Mr. D. W. McLachlan (Chairman), Brig.- 
Gen. C. H. Mitchell and Mr. Olivier 0. Lefebvre. A number of meetings of 
the board have been held and instructions as to the form and scope of the report 
to be made were finally agreed upon in joint session at Washington in December 
last and forwarded to both the Canadian and American Governments. On 
January 5, 1925 these instructions, after having been considered by the National 
Advisory Committee for Canada, were transmitted to the board. Meantime. 
in anticipation of the eventual receipt of these instructions, much study has 
been given both to the Canadian and American sections of the river. Ice 
conditions have been carefully investigated, stream discharges determined, 
soundings taken, test borings driven, surveys carried out, and numerous plans 
prepared. As a result, a large amount of valuable information has now been 
got together for use in the preparation of the required designs and report. 



REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 105 

During the year a complete survey of the Lachine rapids from the head of 
the canal to LaPrairie basin has been all but completed and plans in connection 
therewith, bearing relation to the complete development of this stretch of the 
river both for power and navigation, are in course of preparation. Two survey 
parties have been kept continuously at work and office staffs maintained both at 
Ottawa and Cornwall. It is expected that the International Board of Engineers 
will be in a position to make its report within a year's time. 

(c) Hudson Bay Railway Terminals 

The staff maintained at Port Nelson during the past year, consisted as it 
has for several previous seasons, of a resident engineer, a cook, a foreman and 
from two to six handy men or rough carpenters. 

Extensive repairs were made to the water supply dam which had been 
severely damaged during the break up season in the month of May. During 
the summer the cribwork of the wharves and bridge piers was repaired and crib 
filling, which had been washed out, replaced. The summer months passed 
without serious accidents, but in November the works were visited by a storm 
of unusual severity, a north-east blizzard which raged for three days. The 
tide rose to an elevation 8 feet above normal and much damage resulted both to 
works and floating plant. The dredges, and other units of the plant which 
were carried away, have fortunately been deposited high on the sloping beach 
where they may be considered safe from the effects of any storms but those of 
unusual severity. Repairs to damaged portions of the works are in progress. 

I have the honour to be, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

A. E. DUBUC, 

Chief Engineer. 

G. A. Bell, Esq., C.M.G., 

Deputy Minister, Department of Railways and Canals, 
Ottawa, Canada. 



106 



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS 
CANALS OF CANADA 





Location 


Length 

in 
Miles 


No. of 

Locks 


Locks 




Minimum dimensions 


Name 


Length 


Width 


Depth 
at ordi- 
nary 
low 
level 


St. Lawrence and Great 
Lakes 

Lachine 


Montreal to Lachine 


8-50 
14-00 
11-25 
1-25 
3-66 
7-33 

26-75 

1-30 

0-12 

0-75 

5-75 

126-25 

700 

0-12 
12-00 

5-17 

89-0 
114-6 

35-0 
0-49 


5 
5 
6 
1 
2 
3 

.26 

1 

1 

2 

5 

47 

2 

1 
9 

None 

18 
23 

1 
1 


Ft. 

270 

280 
270 
800 
270 
800 

270 

900 

200 
200 
200 
134 

134 

200 
118 


Ft. 

45 
45 
45 
50 
45 
50 

45 

60 

45 
45 
45 
33 

33 

45 
22-5 


Ft, 

14 


Soulanges 


Cascades Point to Coteau Landing 
Cornwall to Dickinson's Landing.! 
Farran's Point Rapid 


15 


Cornwall. . . . 


14 


Farran's Point 


14 


Rapide Plat 


Rapide Plat, Morrisburg 


14 


Galops 


Iroquois to Cardinal 


14 


Welland 


Port Dalhousie, Lake Ontario to 
Port Colborne, Lake Erie 

St. Mary's Rapids, 47 miles west 
of Lake Huron 




Sault Ste. Marie. . 


14 




19 


Ottawa and Rideau Rivers 
Ste. Anne Lock 


Junction of St. Lawrence and 






9 


Carillon 


Carillon rapids, Ottawa river 

Long Sault rapids, Ottawa river.. . 
Ottawa to Kingston 


9 


Grenville 


9 


Rideau 


5 




Rideau Lake to Perth, (Tay 
Branch) 


6-5 


Richelieu River 
St. Ours Lock . . 




6-5 


Chambly 


Chambly to St. Johns, Que 

Isthmus of Murray, Bay of Quinte 

Trenton to Peterboro Lock, Peter- 

boro 


6-5 


Lake Ontario to Georgian 
Bay 


11 


Trent 


175 
134 

142 
300 


33 
33 

33 

48 






8-4 




Peterboro Lock to Washago 

Sturgeon Lake to Port Perry (Scu- 
gog Branch") 


6 
6 


Miscellaneous 
St. Peters 


St. Peters Bay to Bras d'Or Lakes, 
Cape Breton, N.S 






IS 









REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER 



107 



['ABLE SHOWING THE DATES OF THE OPENING AND CLOSING OE THE CANALS 

FOR THE SEASONS OF 1921, 1922, 1923 AND 1924 



Canals 



Lachine.. . 
Soulanges . 
Cornwall . 



Williamsburg — 
Farran's Point. 
Rapide Plat. . . 
Galops 



Welland. 



Sault Ste. Marie. 



Ste. Anne. 



Carillon and Grenville . 

Rideau — 

At Ottawa 

At Kingston Mills . . . 



Trent- 
Ontario- Rice Lake Div., Lower 

Section 

Trenton Bridge 

Ontario- Rice Lake Div., Upper 

Section 

Hastings to Rice Lake 

Hastings to Peterboro 

Rice Lake to Peterboro 

Peterboro to Lakefield 

Peterboro to Lift Lock 

Lakefield to Bobcaygeon 

Bobcaygeon to Rosedale 

Kirkfield Lift Lock 

Kirkfield to Lake Simcoe 

Lake Simcoe to Orillia 

Scugog River to Lindsay Lock. . . 



Murray . . 

St. Ours. 



Chambly. 
St. Peters. 



1921 



Opened Closed 



April 18. 
" 18. 
" 18. 



15. 



May 



" 13. 
April 14. 

May 3. 
" 12. 



April 23. 

" 29. 
May 12. 
April 6. 
April 19. 
May 8. 
8. 

" 30. 

" 20. 

April 11 . 
" 15. 

"' 18. 
" 19. 



Dec. 14.. 
" 14.. 
" 15.. 

" 16.. 
" 16.. 
" 16.. 

" 19.. 

" 16.. 

Nov. 30. . 

" 30.. 



30.. 
15.. 



Dec. 



Nov. 10. 
" 10. 



Nov. 26. 

8. 

7. 

" 25. 

" 21. 

Oct. 6. 

" 11. 

" 11. 

Nov. 6. 

Dec. 5. 

Nov. 30. 



Jan. 7, 
1922 



1922 



Opened Closed 



April 19.. 
" 21.. 
" 18.. 

" 18.. 
" 19.. 
" 18.. 

" 17.. 

" 17.. 

May 1 . . 

1.. 



" 11. 
April 5. 

May 12. 
3. 



May 5. 

" 13. 

" 20. 

" 1. 
April 29. 
May 20. 

" 18. 

" 13. 
2. 

1. 

1. 

1. 

April 24 



Dec. 13. 
" 11. 
" 13. 

" 14. 
" 14. 
" 14. 

" 14. 

" 24. 

Nov. 28. 

" 30. 



" 17. 
Oct. 29. 



Nov. 25. 

" 4. 

" 4. 

" 21. 

" 11. 
Oct. 26. 

" 28 
Nov. 10.' 

" 12. 

" 30. 
" 30. 
* 30. 



Jan. 



1923 



1923 



Opened Closed 



May 



April 30. 

" 30. 
" 30. 
" 30. 

" 25., 

May 1 . 

1. 

1. 



April 27. 
May 17. 

" 17. 
April 28. 
May 4. 

" 23. 

" 16. 

" 23. 
April 23. 

« 24. 

May 2. 
7. 
7. 



Dec. 12. 



" 14. 

" 15. 

" 15. 

" 15. 

" 26. 

Nov. 30. 

" 30. 



30. 
30. 



16.. 



Nov. 27. 

" 10. 

8. 

Dec. 1. 

Nov. 15. 

Oct. 25. 

" 26. 

" 26. 
Dec. 4. 



Nov. 30. 
" 30. 



Jan. 19, 

1924 



1924 



Opened Closed 



April 21.. 
" 23.. 
" 22.. 

" 22.. 
" 22.. 
" 22.. 

" 16.. 

" 19.. 

May 1 . . 

1.. 



" 13. 
" 17. 

" 20. 

May 15. 

May 12. 

" 12. 
April 26. 

" 29. 
May 18. 

" 18. 

" 12. 
April 27. 

" 15. 

May 1 . 

1. 

April 23 . 



Dec. 13 
" 12 
" 14 

« 14 

" 14 
" 14 

" 13 

" 15 

Nov. 30 

" 30 



4 
Oct. 4 

Nov. 29 

Nov. 18 

Nov. 15 

6 

" 26 

3 

Oct. 24 

" 24 

Nov. 19 

" 15 

Dec. 9 

Nov. 30 

" 30 

Jan. 7, 
1925 



DOMINION OF CANADA 



TWENTY-FIRST REPORT 



OF THE 



BOARD OF 

RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS 

FOR CANADA 



FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 

1925 




OTTAWA 

F. A. ACLAND 

PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 

1926 



THE BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Hon. H. A. McKeown, K.C., Chief Commissioner. 

S. J. McLean, M.A., LL.B., Ph.D.. Assistant Chief Commissioner. 

Thos. Vien, K.C., Deputy Chief Commissioner. 

A. C. Boyce, K.C., Commissioner. 

C. Lawrence, Commissioner. 

Hon. Frank Oliver, Commissioner. 

A. D. CARTWRIGHT, 

Secretary. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Accidents and accident investigations 15 

Appeals from Decisions of the Board 14 

Applications to the Board, total number, 3,410 14 

Engineering Department of the Board 14 

Fire Inspection Department of the Board 16 

Formal and informal matters 6 

General decisions and rulings of the Board (Epitomized) 9 

General Orders (Epitomized) 7 

Operating Department of the Board IS 

Orders, General Orders and Circulars 14 

Public sittings of the Board 6 

Railway Grade Crossing Fund 8 

Routine work of the Board (Record Department) 17 

Staff 17 

Traffic Department of the Board 14 

APPENDICES 

Appendix "A" — Principal Judgments of the Board for the year ending December 31, 1925 19 
(For Index to Judgments, see page 281) 

Appendix "B" — Report of the Chief Traffic Officer of the Board for the year ending De- 202 

cember 31, 1925 

Appendix "C" — Report of the Chief Engineer of the Board for the year ending Decem- 
ber 31. 1925 212 

Appendix "D" — Report of the Chief Operating Officer of the Board for the year ending 

December 31, 1925 224 

Appendix "E" — Report of the Chief Fire Inspector of the Board for the year ending 

December 31, 1925 261 

Appendix "F" — List of cases carried to the Supreme Court of Canada, from February 1, 

1904 to December 31, 1925 268 

Appendix "G" — List of General Orders and Circulars of the Board for the year ending 

December 31, 1925, 271 



25486-1* 



REPORT 

OF THE 

BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS 
FOR CANADA 

To the Governor in Council: 

Pursuant to the provisions of section 31 of the Railway Act, 1919, the Board 
of Railway Commissioners for Canada has the honour to submit its Twenty-first 
Report for the year ending December 31, 1925. 

Since the publication of the last report the following amendment has been 
made to the Railway Act, 1919: — 

15-16 GEORGE V 

Chapter 52 

An Act to amend The Railway Act, 1919 

(Assented to 27th June, 1925.) 
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House 
of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: — 

1. Chapter forty-one of the statutes of 1922 is hereby repealed. 

2. Subsection five of section three hundred and twenty-five of the Railway 
Act, 1919, is hereby repealed. 

3. Section three hundred and twenty-five of the Railway Act, 1919, is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsections: — 

u (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of section three the powers 
given to the Board under this Act to fix, determine and enforce just and 
reasonable rates, and to change and alter rates as changing conditions or 
cost of transportation may from time to time require, shall not be limited 
or in any manner affected by the provisions of any Act of the Parliament 
of Canada, or by any agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto, 
whether general in application or special and relating only to any specific 
railway or railways, and the Board shall not excuse any charge of unjust 
discrimination, whether practised against shippers, consignees, or locali- 
ties, or of undue or unreasonable preference, on the ground that such 
discrimination or preference is justified or required by any agreement 
made or entered into by the company: Provided that, notwithstanding 
anything in this subsection contained, rates on grain and flour shall, on 
and from the date of the passing of this Act, be governed by the provisions 
of the agreement made pursuant to chapter five of the statutes of Canada, 
1897, but such rates shall apply to all such traffic moving from all points 
on all lines of railway west of Fort William to Fort William or Port 
Arthur over all lines now or hereafter constructed by any company subject 
to the jurisdiction of Parliament. 

"(6) The Board shall not excuse any charge of unjust discrimination, 
whether practised against shippers, consignees, or localities or of undue 
or unreasonable preference, respecting rates on grain and flour, governed 
by the provisions of chapter five of the statutes of Canada, 1897, and by 
the agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto, within the territory 
in the immediately preceding subsection referred to, on the ground that 
such discrimination or preference is justified or required by the said Act 
or by the agreement made or entered into pursuant thereto." 



6 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

4. To remove doubts the tolls specified in tariffs filed at any tune prior 
to the passing of this Act, with the Board in accordance with the provisions 
of the Railway Act, 1919, are and shall be deemed lawful tolls until varied by 
tariffs filed with the Board pursuant to this Act, notwithstanding the provisions 
of any Act or any agreement, and notwithstanding any judgments or orders 
made, at any time prior to the passing of this Act, with regard thereto. 



PUBLIC SITTINGS OF THE BOARD 

During the year covered by the period from January 1, 1925, to December 
31, 1925, the Board held 36 public sittings at which 121 applications were heard. 
The number of public sittings held in the various provinces were as follows: — 
Provinces Number 

Ontario 22 

Quebec 4 

Manitoba 2 

Saskatchewan 2 

Alberta 3 

British Columbia 3 

Nova Scotia 

New Brunswick 

Prince Edward Island 

Total 36 

The applications include a great variety of matters falling within the juris- 
diction of the Board under the Railway Act, varying from the complaint of a 
private individual to weightier matters of general public interest affecting the 
community as a whole. 

FORMAL AND INFORMAL MATTERS 

The number of informal matters dealt with by the Board, as distinguished 
from matters heard at public sittings, constitute a considerable percentage of 
the total applications and complaints dealt with by it; that is to say, of a total 
of 3,410 applications and complaints received and dealt with by the Board 96 
per cent were disposed of without the necessity of such formal hearing. These 
informal complaints, dealt with and settled without the necessity of hearing, 
entail in many instances a considerable amount of inquiry and consideration on 
the part of the Board's officials, and cover a wide range of subjects, as, for 
example, a complaint of a more or less trivial nature to a matter of general 
public interest affecting the community as a whole, or involving the application 
of some general principle, regarding the railway rates. 

RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING FUND 

In accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 262 of the 
Railway Act, 1919, provision was made that the sum of $200,000 each year, for 
ten consecutive years from the 1st day of April, 1919, be appropriated and set 
apart from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of aiding actual con- 
struction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in 
respect of highway crossings of railways at rail level, in existence on the 1st day 
of April, 1909, the said sums to be placed to the credit of a special account to 
be known as " The Railway Grade Crossing Fund ", to be applied by the Board, 
subject to certain limitations set out in the Act, solely towards the cost (not 
including that of maintenance and operation) of actual construction work for 
the purpose specified. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 7 

In dealing with such crossings, the Board issued, between the 1st day of 
April, 1909, and the 31st day of December, 1925, 628 orders, providing protection 
for 690 crossings, as follows: — 

By automatic half interlocking plants (street railway protection) .... 6 

By closing crossings 29 

By diversion highways 58 

By diversion highway and bridge. . 1 

By diversion highway and removal view obstruction 1 

. By electric bells 270 

By electric bell and flash-light 1 

By electric bell and removal view obstruction 2 

By electric bell and wig-wag 94 

By electric bell and wig-wag and removal of view obstruction 5 

Bv easing cuive on approach to highway bridge 1 

By gates 121 

By gates and half interlocker 1 

By overhead bridges 27 

By removal view obstructions 36 

By removal view obstructions and reducing grade 1 

By shelter 1 

By subways 64 

By towers 3 

By wig-wags 17 

It will be seen by comparing the total number of crossings protected with 
the Twentieth Annual Report of the Board that the increase for the twelve 
months ending December 31, 1925, in the number of crossings protected number 
36, made up as follows: — 

By automatic half interlocking plants (street railway protection) .... 1 

By closing crossings 2 

By diversion highways 4 

By electric bell and wig-wag 21 

By gates 1 

By removal view obstruction 3 

By overhead bridges 1 

By subways 6 

By wig-wags 4 

Note— 36 crossings and 43 protections consequent on account of double bell and wig-wag 
at 4 crossings, diversion and subway at 2 crossings and diversion closing 2 crossings. 

It will be noted that under the new consolidated Railway Act provision is 
made that the total amount of money to be apportioned and directed and 
ordered by the Board to be payable from the annual appropriation shall not in 
the case of any one crossing exceed 25 per cent of the cost of the actual con- 
struction work in providing such protection, and shall not in any such cases 
exceed the sum of $15,000, and that no such money shall in any one year be 
applied to more than six crossings on any one railway in any one municipality, 
or more than once in any one year to any one crossing. 

Subsection (3) of section 262 of the consolidated Railway Act provides that 
in case any province contributes towards the said fund, the Board may apportion, 
direct and order payment out of the amount so contributed by such province, 
subject to any conditions and restrictions made and imposed by such province 
in respect of its contribution. 

GENERAL ORDERS 

The following is a brief summary of some of the matters dealt with under 
the Board's General Orders: — 

General Order No. 414 directing that the Board's General Order No. 364, 
dated May 23, 1922, establishing a mileage scale to apply on agricultural lime- 
stone, or stone dust, east of Port Arthur, Fort William, and Armstrong, in lieu 
of the specific commodity rates or mileage scale then in effect, be amended by 



8 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

striking out the mileage scale shown therein, and substituting rates in cents per 
100 pounds as set out in said order. 

General Order No. 415 directing that the rules relative to the inspection of 
locomotives and tenders, as approved by the Board's General Order No. 289, 
dated March 24, 1920, be amended by striking out the first paragraph under the 
heading " Draw Gear and Draft Gear," and substituting therefor a special clause 
as set out in said general order. 

General Order No. 416 directing that General Order 330, dated February 
16, 1921, requiring the railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of the Board 
to adopt and put into force the Regulations Regarding the Inspection of Railway 
Steam Boilers, be amended by striking out clause 1 of said regulations and 
substituting therefor a clause to the effect that these rules shall apply to all 
steam boilers and their appurtenances operated by railway companies, except 
those used (a) in locomotives, (b) in heating plants which carry pressure not 
exceeding 15 pounds per square inch, (c) in hotels, office buildings (which do not 
form part of station premises), and other public places, and (e) by contractors. 

General Order No. 418, dated June 26, 1925, directing that Exchange and 
Toll Line form of Agreement No. 650B, to be entered into between the Bell 
Telephone Company and any other company, municipality, or corporation hav- 
ing authority to construct or operate a telephone system or line, be approved; 
and that General Orders Nos. 114, 375 and 409 be rescinded. 

General Order No. 419, dated July 8, 1925, directing that the commodity 
rates westbound, on traffic originating at Fort William and such points east of 
Fort William as were at the time of the passing of the Crowsnest Act, or of the 
making of the agreement on the company's line of railway (such rates being in 
force on July 6, 1924), be restored by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian 
National Railways, effective within fifteen days from the date of the order. 

General Order No. 421, dated July 17, 1925, directing that Canadian Freight 
Classification No. 17, superseding and cancelling Canadian Freight Classification 
No. 16 and supplements thereto, and as amended by proposed Supplement No. 1 
to proposed Canadian Freight Classification No. 17, and as further amended by 
memoranda agreed to in conference between the carriers and shippers, filed with 
the Board on April 9, 1924, be approved, subject to the changes prescribed and 
authorized by the judgment of the Board dated June 15, 1925, and become 
effective on thirty days' notice from the date of issue. 

General Order No. 423, dated August 31, 1925, amending the Board's 
General Order No. 78, dated July 14, 1911, in certain particulars, and also 
amending the Board's General Order No. 394, dated February 8, 1924, prescrib- 
ing certain rules and instructions for the inspection and testing of locomotive 
boilers and their appurtenances. 

General Order No. 424 directing that the Board's General Order No. 289, 
dated March 24, 1920, prescribing rules to be adopted by railway companies 
subject to its jurisdiction in regard to inspection of locomotives and tenders, be 
amended with regard to paragraph 3 thereof, as set out in said order. 

General Order No. 425, dated November 13, 1925, directing that all railway 
companies subject to the Board's jurisdiction amend their tariffs on high 
explosives, so that the rates published therein shall not exceed the current pub- 
lished first-class rates, where lower than standard mileage rates, on carload 
shipments; and that with respect to less than carload shipments there shall be 
no change in the present basis of the various lines, but the rate shall be based 
on the current class rates where lower than standard mileage rates; and 
that the carload commodity rates from James Island and Powder Point, British 
Columbia, to stations in Western Canada, be based on the present arbitrary to 
Vancouver, plus current first-class rates, in lieu of being constructed, as at 
present, on the arbitrary plus first-class standard mileage rates. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 9 

GENERAL DECISIONS AND RULINGS OF THE BOARD 

Submitted herewith, epitomised, are some of the more important matters 
dealt with by the Board at its public sittings for the year ending December 31, 
1925. For other principal judgments of the Board see appendix " A " to this 
report. 

OTTAWA ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY V. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, CITY OF 
OTTAWA AND OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION 

Street Railway — Steam Railivay — Existing Subway — Crossing — Contribution — 

Conditions 

Without making any contribution towards the original cost of the Elgin 
Street subway under the tracks of the Canadian National Railway, the Board 
authorized the Ottawa Electric Railway Company to lay a double track and 
operate their railway through the subway upon lowering the grade of the high- 
way and making other alterations required by the Board for public safety, the 
speed of cars passing through the subway being limited to six miles an hour, the 
order being made without prejudice to the rights of the several parties concerned 
with the original construction of the subway. 

The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, 
dated March 11, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner, the Asst. Chief 
Commissioner and Mr. Commissioner Oliver. — C.R.C. Vol. 30, p. 168. 

EUSTLS MINING COMPANY V. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILWAY COMPANY 

Tolls — Increase — Reduction — Railway Act, 1919, Section 331 (3) — Basis for 
fixing rates — " Costs of service " — " What the Traffic will bear! 1 

The Board has no power to regulate tolls for the purpose of equalizing cost 
of production, or geographical, climatic or economic conditions. The usual basis 
for fixing tolls (rail rates) is said to be (1) "cost of service" or (2) "what the 
traffic will bear." Reference to the change in point of view of shipper and 
carrier respectively. 

Where a railway company has increased tolls the burden of justifying a 
further increase (after investigation by the Board) is on the company. Railway 
Act, section 331, subsection 3. 

The Board reduced the rates on concentrates from Eustis to Lennoxville 
(5.58 miles) increased from 40 cents to 60 cents per ton, by the amount of such 
increase. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner, dated March 11, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner and 
Mr. Commissioners Boyce and Oliver.— C.R.C. Vol. XXX, p, 388. 

GEARY V. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 

Jurisdiction — Ocean charges--Rail transit — Tolls. 

The Board has no jurisdidtion to entertain a complaint respecting ocean 
charges upon a shipment of goods from London to Toronto. The power of the 
Board is limited to dealing with the freight charged for the railway transit from 
Montreal to Toronto. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of the Chief Commissioner, 
dated March 27, 1925, concurred in by the Assistant Chief Commissioner. — 
C.R.C. Vol. XXX, p, 24. 



10 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

CITY OF LONDON V. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY 

Level Crossing — Protection — Maintenance — Senior and Junior. 

An order to provide protection at a level crossing was refused when there 
was an open view of the crossing in a yard and the traffic movement was slow. 
So held at Quebec Street crossing, Canadian Pacific Railway at London. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner, dated April 30, 1925, concurred in by Mr. Commissioner Boyce. — 
C.R.C. Vol. XXX, p. 422. 

CITY OF BRANTFORD et at V. CANADIAN PACIFIC AND CANADIAN NATIONAL 

RAILWAY COMPANIES 

Tolls — Special — Crowsnest Agreement — Authorized by Statute — Points on 
Canadian Pacific Railway in 1897 — Unjust Discrimination. 

The city of Toronto was a point on the line of the Canadian Pacific Rail- 
way in 1897 (when the Crowsnest Pass agreement was executed) by reason of 
the lease of the Ontario and Quebec Railway to the Canadian Pacific Railway 
Company, executed in 1884. 

The city of Hamilton was also a point on the Canadian Pacific in 1897, 
by reason of the agreement in 18*96 giving the Canadian Pacific equal rights 
with the Grand Trunk over the latter's line from Toronto to Hamilton Junction 
for fifty years from May 13, 1896; and the Canadian Pacific's independent line 
from Hamilton Junction to Hamilton. 

Toronto and Hamilton are therefore entitled to the special rates given by 
the Crowsnest Agreement to points then on the Canadian Pacific Railway and 
these rates, being authorized by statute, cannot be regarded as an unjust dis- 
crimination against Brantford, which was not on the Canadian Pacific when the 
agreement was made. 

The facts are fullv set out in the Judgment of the Chief Commissioner, 
dated May 8, 1925.— C.R.C. Vol. 30, p. 164. 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS V. DEPARTMENT OF ROADS, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 

Grade Separation — Construction — Highway Improvement — Railway Grade 

Crossing Fund — Industrial Spur 

Where the object of a separation of grades of a highway and a railway or 
an industrial spur is not the public safety but the improvement of the highway, 
neither the railway nor the owner of the spur will be ordered to contribute to the 
cost; but a contribution may be made out of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund. 

Seee the Vancouver case, 18 C.R.C. 287; (1914) A.C. 1067, 19 D.L.R. 91. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, 
dated May 27, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner and Asst. Chief 
Commissioner.— C.R.C. Vol. XXX, p. 177. 

CITIZENS OF BROME COUNTY V. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY 

(Abercorn Station Case) 

Station — Stopping Through Trains — Customs Regulations — Reasonable and 
Adequate Train Service — Earnings 

Following the general practice of the Board, an order to stop through trains 
at Abercorn Station, 74.3 miles from Montreal, involving increased expense and 
delay to through traffic, without any return therefrom, was refused, when the 
Customs Regulations no longer made it necessary, the existing train service being 
considered as reasonably and fairly adequate and convenient for the traffic. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 11 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, 
dated May 18, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner, the Asst. Chief 
Commissioner and Mr. Commissioner Oliver. — C.R.C. Vol. 30, p. 172. 

HUNTER BROS. V. GREAT NORTHERN AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANIES 

Spur — Removal — Warehouse — Lease — Replacement — Jurisdiction — Sec. 312, 

Railway Act, 1919 

The Board has no jurisdiction under section 312 to grant relief under the 
following circumstances. Upon the removal of a spur track leading from a ware- 
house to the line of the Red Mountain Railway, after the Board's decision in 
Rossland Board of Trade v. Great Northern Railway Company, 28 C.R.C. 24, the 
lessors of the warehouse site, of which the lease was subject to cancellation on 
two days' notice, applied to have the track replaced or the warehouse moved 
1,600 feet to another site adjoining the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. 

The facts are fully set out in the judgment of the Chief Commissioner, dated 
May 29, 1925, concurred in bv the Asst. Chief Commissioner and Commissioners 
Boyce and Oliver.— C.R.C. Vol. 30, p. 180. 

RE HANEY STATION SLOW ORDER 

Removal of Slow Order — Accident at Crossing — Railway Act, 1919, 

Section 309 (c) 

The Board ordered the removal of a slow order made under section 309 (c) 
at a crossing protected by an electric bell on the condition that all cars on the 
commercial track be kept back at least fifty feet from either side of the crossing, 
no previous accident having taken place, the traffic was light and where the 
accident in question was due to the inattention of the injured man. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, 
dated June 4, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner and Assistant Chief 
Commissioner.— C.R.C. Vol. XXX, p. 415. 

TOWN OF BRIGHTON V. CANADIAN PACIFIC AND CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY 

COMPANIES 

Inter switching — Benefits — Facilities — Location — Cost 

An application for interswitching facilities by the town of Brighton was 
granted, and, after deducting $500 paid by the town, the cost of construction 
and maintenance was apportioned 80 per cent to be borne by the Canadian 
Pacific Railway Company, as it would chiefly benefit, and 20 per cent by the 
Canadian National Railway Company. Convenience in operation to the Rail- 
way adversely affected was a factor in determining the site of the interchange 
tracks. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of Assistant Chief Commissioner 
McLean, dated June 23, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner. — C.R.C. 
Vol. XXXI, p. 20. 

CITY OF OTTAWA V. CANADIAN NATIONAL AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANIES 

Railway crossed by Highway — Senior and Junior Maintenance 

When a plan showing a proposed street is filed in the Registry office and 
nothing further is done from which dedication of the street could be inferred 
and there is no user of the street prior to the construction of the railway crossing 
it on the ground, the railway company constructing the railway is senior at the 
highway crossing and the Municipality will be ordered to bear the whole cost 
of construction and maintenance of the highway crossing. 



12 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

(City of Hamilton v. Hamilton Radial Electric Railway Co., 22 C.R.C. 438. 
Sasman v. Canadian Northern Railway Co., 20 C.R.C. 246. Township of Cald- 
well v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 9 C.R.C. 497. City of Edmonton v. 
Edmonton Yukon & Pacific Ry. Co., 13 C.R.C. 128.) 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner, dated August 18, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner and 
Mr. Commissioners Boyce and Oliver.— C.R.C. Vol. XXX, p. 445. 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA V. CANADIAN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION 

Tolls — Reduction — Eastbound and Westbound — Inequality — Grain and Flour 

— 15-16 George V, Chapter 52 

Held, per the Chief Commissioner and Commissioner Oliver, that the 
extension (15-16 George V, chapter 52) of the rates prescribed by the Crows- 
nest Agreement of 1897 to grain eastbound to Fort William from any and all 
points west thereof, had brought about or increased an inequality as between 
eastbound and westbound grain traffic which placed western ports under a 
serious disadvantage and which it was the duty of the Board to remove. 

Such action should not be postponed pending the general rate investigation 
directed by Order in Council, June 5, 1925. 

Though the Canadian Pacific is justified in establishing a " mountain 
scale " twenty-five per cent greater as compared with the prairie rate, thus 
adding, in effect, a differential to its •mileage rates westbound to meet the extra 
cost of operation over the mountain section, the Canadian National with easier 
gradients has no such justification and as the rates on the two roads must be 
the same, they must be governed by conditions on the Canadian National, rather 
than allow the latter to collect an extra and discriminatory toll on westbound 
as compared with eastbound grain traffic, which the conditions on its own line 
do not justify. 

Though the Board has repeatedly held that rates to be just and reasonable, 
must be just and reasonable to the railways no less than to others concerned, 
Parliament has now decreed (15-16 George V, chapter 52, section 3) that 
" irrespective, almost, of the cost of transportation this national asset (grain 
and flour) must find its way to market, so far as railway carriage is concerned, 
at. a rate substantially lower than other commodities bear. The enormous 
national value of the grain production of Canada justified such procedure." 

If rates so fixed are unremunerative to the railways, it would seem that 
any relief to business conditions in the form of reduced railway rates must be 
accompanied by some provision (not necessarily within the powers of the 
Board) for supplementing railway revenue, or by some other action, since the 
loss of revenue involved is substantial. 

Ordered, therefore, that the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Rail- 
ways file tariffs, effective not (later than September 15, 1925, reducing the rates 
on grain and flour to Pacific ports within Canada for export to the same rates, 
proportioned to distance, as such grain and flour would carry if moving east- 
ward for export. 

Held, per Commissioners Boyce and Lawrence in a written protest, that 
the judgment of the Chief Commissioner and Commissioner Oliver (who heard 
the application) was irregular, improper and not binding upon the Board; and 
that it should be rescinded, as being a minority judgment contrary to the Board's 
expressed and published intention to deal with the subject matter as part of the 
general rate investigation and not separately, and to hear new evidence; con- 
trary to the terms of the Order in Council directing such investigation; contrary 
to natural justice, in that parties seriously interested were not heard nor notified 
of the hearing; and contrary to the established practice of the Board which 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 13 

required that the Chief Traffic Officer be called into 'Consultation and that all 
important rate questions, by whomsoever heard, be considered by the Board 
meeting as a whole. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of the Chief Commissioner, 
dated September 2, 1925, concurred in by Mr. Commissioner Oliver, Mr. Com- 
missioners Boyce and Lawrence dissenting. — C.R.C., Vol. XXX, p. 393. 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA V. CANADIAN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION 

Tolls — Reduction — Eastbound and Westbound — Inequality — Quorum of Board — 
Hearing — Railway Act, 1919. Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 51 

Upon an application to rescind an order of the Board issued pursuant to the 
judgment of two of its members who heard the application upon which it was 
based. 

Held by the Deputy Chief Commissioner (the Chief Commissioner and 
Commissioner Oliver concurring). 

1. That the making of the order in question (see Province of British 
Columbia v. Canadian Freight Association, 30 C.R.C. 393) was within the powers 
of the two Commissioners sitting as a quorum of the Board, under sections 12 
and 20 of the Railway Act. 

2. That they were not precluded from exercising these powers in respect of 
a particular application by Order in Council, P.C. 886, directing the Board to 
make a general investigation of railway rate structures: nor by a notice prev- 
iously published by the Board as a whole (30 C.R.C. p. 404). 

3. That when two Commissioners have heard a case pursuant to section 12 
they cannot be ousted and prevented from delivering judgment by any action 
of the full Board ; and further, that even if the Board had such power, it did not 
in fact exercise it in this case by the terms of a resolution which it passed, nor 
by the notice above referred to. 

4. That the order should not be rescinded for reasons of expediency. 

5. That while the railways are entitled to the maintenance of adequate 
rates to enable them to function properly and to attract new capital, it had not 
been shown that the rates established by the Order attacked were not remunera- 
tive and that therefore a case had not been made for rescission. 

6. That fair and reasonable rates on grain and flour moving westward for 
export could not be determined without a full hearing on the merits of the 
whole matter involved in presence of all interested parties. 

Per McLean, Assistant Chief Commissioner (dissenting) : That the Board 
has no power to fix rates lower than cost of transportation in order to aid 
business: that fairness and reasonableness of rates is to be determined on the 
facts after due enquiry: that the order attacked was issued on a record partially 
heard and incomplete: that the subject matter fell properly within the scope 
of the general investigation: and that for reasons already given (30 C.R.C. 
393) the order attacked and the rates established under it should be rescinded. 

Per Boyce and Lawrence, Commissioners (dissenting). The order attacked 
was made by a minority of the Board without jurisdiction, contrary to the 
directiqp. of the Order in Council and the express direction of the whole Board, 
without due notice to parties interested and upon partial and incomplete con- 
sideration of the freight rate structure: it is in principle contrary to established 
principles of rate regulation and should be rescinded. Nevertheless, delay in 
dealing with the matter has resulted in business arrangements being made based 
on the rates fixed by the order and those who had acted upon it should not be 
made to suffer, therefore the rates should be allowed to stand but the general 
investigation should be expedited and leave given to the railway companies to 
apply herein at any time for relief. 



14 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Ordered. 1. That the motion to rescind or vary the order be dismissed. 

2. That inasmuch as many interests which were not represented before the 
Board when the case was heard have now been brought to its attention, a further 
consideration of the whole matter should be had, as part of the general freight 
rate euquiry. 

3. That the railways be at liberty to move to vary, rescind, or modify the 
order on the ground that it is unduly burdensome, or for other reasons. 

4. That the existing rates continue in force till further orders. 

The facts are fully set out in the Judgment of Deputy Chief Commissioner 
Vien, dated November 19, 1925, concurred in by the Chief Commissioner and 
Mr. Commissioner Oliver, dissented to by Assistant Chief Commissioner McLean, 
Mr. Commissioners Boyce and Lawrence. — C.R.C. Vol. 31, p. 61. 

APPEALS FROM RULINGS OF THE BOARD 

For the year ending December 31, 1925, there were no appeals made to the 
Supreme Court of Canada from the decisions of the Board. 

One case was carried in appeal to the Governor in Council and is still pend- 
hg. This is an appeal of the Canadian Shippers' Traffic Bureau against order of 
the Board No. 36646, dated July 27, 1925, in the matter of a claim against the 
Grand Trunk Railway Company for refund of alleged freight overcharges. 

ORDERS, GENERAL ORDERS AND CIRCULARS 

The total number of orders issued for the year ending December 31, 1925, 
was 1,239. The number of general circulars issued by the Board, directed to all 
the railway companies subject to its jurisdiction, was 3. The general orders as 
distinguished from other orders of the Board are those affecting all railway 
companies subject to its jurisdiction, and are 13 in number for the year. 

A list of the general orders and circulars for the year ending December 31, 
1925, will be found compiled under appendix " G " to this report. 

APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD 

The total number of applications, including informal complaints made to 
the Board, for the year ending December 31, 1925, was 3,410. 

TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD 

In the Traffic Department of the Board the number of tariffs received and 
filed for the year ending December 31, 1925, was as follows: — 

Freight tariffs, including supplements 62,871 

Passenger tariffs, including supplements 10,075 

Express tariffs, including supplements 5,200 

Telephone tariffs, including supplements 895 

Sleeping and parlour car tariffs, including supplements 141 

Telegraph tariffs and supplements 5 

79,187 

The total number of tariffs filed from February 1, 1904, to December 31, 
1925, was 1,353,076. 

The details of the tariffs will be found under appendix " B " to this report. 

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD 

In the Engineering Department of the Board a large number of inspections 
were made covering the whole Dominion. These inspections for the year ending 
December 31, 1925, number 250, and cover inspections for the opening of a 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 15 

railway for the carriage of traffic, inspections of culverts, highway crossings, 
cattle guards, road crossings, bridges, subways and general inspections falling 
within the scope of the work of the Engineering Department. 

Under appendix "C" will be found a detailed report of the Chief Engineer. 

OPERATING DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD 

Under the work of this department is included the inspection of locomotive 
boilers and their appurtenances, the inspection of safety appliances on cars 
and locomotives, the investigations into accidents causing personal injury or 
loss of life, the reporting on the locations of stations, matters of protection at 
highway crossings, and train and station services performed by the railway 
companies. 

Under appendix " D " will be found a full and detailed report of the Chief 
Operating Officer of the department. 

ACCIDENTS AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS 

On reference to the report of the Board's Chief Operating Officer, it will be 
seen that accidents to the number of 2,713, covering 272 persons killed and 2,955 
persons injured, were reported to the Board during the year ending December 31, 
1925, as compared with 2,834 accidents reported during the year 1924, covering 
318 persons killed and 3,254 persons injured. 

The figures given show: — 

(1) Seventeen passengers killed in the year 1924 and 6 passengers killed 
in the year 1925; a decrease of 11. The number of passengers injured in 1924 
was 385, as compared with 354 in 1925; a decrease of 31. 

(2) One hundred and seven employees killed in the year 1924, and 76 in 
1925; a decrease of 31. The number of employees injured in 1924 was 2,398, as 
compared with 2,008 in 1925; a decrease of 390. 

(3) One hundred and ninety-four others killed in the year 1924, and 190 in 
1925; a decrease of 4. The number of others injured in 1924 was 471, as com- 
pared with 593 in 1925 ; an increase of 122. 

It is pointed out that of the 190 others killed, 97 (51 per cent) were tres- 
passers, and that of the 593 others injured, 132 (22 per cent) were trespassers. 

It will be noted that of what may be termed preventable loss, there were 
97: persons killed under the heading "trespassers" and 132 injured. This is an 
increase of 13 in the number of killed, and an increase of 23 in the injured, as 
compared with the year 1924. 

The following table shows the total, by provinces, as regards trespassers 
killed and injured, during the year 1925: — 

Province Killed Injured 

Nova Scotia 4 9 

New Brunswick 3 5 

Quebec 17 24 

Ontario 39 51 

Manitoba 6 7 

Saskatchewan 11 12 

Alberta 7 10 

British Columbia 10 14 

Totals 97 132 

Attention is again directed to the statement setting out in detail the situa- 
tion as regards highway crossing accidents during the past five years. It will 
be observed therefrom that there has been a total of 1,117 accidents, covering 
370 persons killed and 1,453 injured. 



16 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Crossings protected by gates accounted for 21 killed and 72 injured. 

Crossings protected by bell accounted for 51 killed and 183 injured. 

Crossings protected by watchmen accounted for 4 killed and 37 injured. 

Crossings unprotected accounted for 294 killed and 1,161 injured. 

There have been 258 accidents at protected crossings, covering 7G persons 
killed and 292 injured. At unprotected crossings there have been 859 accidents, 
covering 294 persons killed and 1,161 injured. 

During the year 1925 there were 257 highway crossing accidents investi- 
gated, of which number 53 occurred at protected crossings, leaving unprotected 
crossings to account for 204 accidents. 

Automobile accidents totalled 210, divided as follows: — 

At crossings protected by gates 7 

At crossings protected by watchman 3 

At crossings protected by bell , 32 

At crossings unprotected 168 

Horse and rig accidents numbered 28, made up as follows: — 

Gates 

Watchman 1 

Bell 3 

Unprotected 24 

Pedestrian accidents numbered 19, as follows: — 

Gates 4 

Watchman 3 

Bell 

Unprotected 12 

During the year 1925 there were 268 highway crossing accidents reported 
to the Board ; covering 76 persons killed and 389 injured, as compared with 240 
accidents reported in 1924, covering 94 persons killed and 287 injured. 

Full particulars of passengers and employees killed and injured, and other 
general information in regard to trespassers killed and injured, accidents at pro- 
tected and unprotected crossings, etc., will be found under appendix a D". 

FIRE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD 

As in previous years local inspection continues to be handled under co-opera- 
tive arrangements made with the several Dominion and provincial forest services. 
During the year 134 officials and employees of such forest services were depu- 
tized to act ex-officio as field officers of the Board's Fire Inspection Depart- 
ment. 

During the fire season of 1925 a grand total of 889 fires from all causes were 
reported as having originated within 300 feet of railway lines in forested terri- 
tory along railways subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. 

Of the grand total, 429 fires burned over less than one-fourth acre each, 
doing no damage, while 378 fires burned over an area of one-fourth acre to ten 
acres each, 82 fires burned over an area of more than 10 acres each. These fires 
burned over 57,430 acres and destroyed forest growth and forest products valued 
at $219,998, and other property valued at $77,629, a total of $297,627. 

Of the grand total, 78.18 per cent are definitely attributed to railway agen- 
cies, 11.92 per cent to known causes other than railways, and 9.90 per cent to 
unknown causes. 

Of the total area burned over, 86.34 per cent is chargeable to railway 
causes, 5.39 per cent to known causes other than railways, and 8.27 per cent to 
unknown causes. 

Of the total damage, 71.92 per cent is chargeable to railway causes, 23.42 
per cent to known causes other than railways, and 4.66 per cent to unknown 
causes. 

Of the 695 fires which the railways are definitely charged with having 
caused, 554 are attributed to sparks from locomotives and 141 fires to employees. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 



17 



During the fire season of 1925 officers of the Fire Inspection Department 
inspected fire-protective appliances on 3,662 locomotives. Of this total, only 
2.40 per cent were found defective. 

In accordance with the fire guard requirements, 10,609.91 miles of fire 
guards were constructed or maintained in non-forested sections of the Prairie 
Provinces. 

Under appendix "E" will be found the Chief Fire Inspector's report, together 
with summaries of fire reports, inspection of locomotives and fire guard con- 
struction. 

BOARD 

The vacancy created on the Board by the retirement of the Honourable 
W. B. Nantel, Deputy Chief Commissioner, has been filled by the appointment 
of Lt.-Col. Thos. Vien, K.C., of Quebec city, whose appointment to the office 
dates from September 5, 1925. 

STAFF 

The following changes have taken place in the staff of the Board during the 
year ending December 31, 1925: — 

In the Chief Commissioner's office, Mr. F. F. Burpee was appointed as 
Secretary to the Chief Commissioner by Order in Council, replacing Miss B. K. 
Dibblee, transferred to the Board's Fire Inspection Department. 

In the Engineering Department, Lt.-Col. J. H. Parks was appointed as 
Division Engineer at Calgary to fill the vacancy created by the transfer of 
Division Engineer A. T. Kerr to Winnipeg to take the place of Mr. H. A. K. 
Drury, transferred to Ottawa to fill the position of Assistant Chief Engineer. In 
this department a vacancy also occurred through the death of Mr. E. E. Nelson, 
Senior Clerk-Stenographer at Winnipeg, on September 22, 1925, and the vacancy 
so created has been filled by the promotion of Mr. T. F. Hodgins of the Board's 
Operating Staff. 

In the Operating Department of the Board, Mr. A. LeSage was appointed 
Inspector of Railroad Operation at Winnipeg, to fill the vacancy created by the 
death, in 1924, of Inspector James Clark. 

ROUTING WORK OF THE BOARD 

RECORD DEPARTMENT 

Below is given a table setting forth the number of appli cations, filings and 
letters received during the year ending December 31, 1925, together with the 
number of Orders issued: — 

Number of applications made 3,410 

Number of filings received during the year 35,997 

Number of outgoing letters during the year 25,055 

Number of orders issued during the year 1,239 

Statement showing the applications made to the Board under the various 
Sections of the Railway Act, for the year ending December 31, 1925 



Sections of the Ry. Act. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


Totals 


Rescinding of Orders, Section 34 

Rules and Reg., Sees. 34-281-287- 

290-296 


8 


4 


9 


8 


3 


6 


4 


5 


8 


1 

1 
3 


! 


6 


62 
2 






2 


4 
4 


3 


4 

1 
2 
3 
1 


2 

2 
..... 


3 
1 
4 






16 


Location of Line, Sections 167- 
177 




...... 


5 


1 


i 

l 

i 


19 








5 




1 


2 


1 


7 








20 


Dev. of Line, Section 178 






2 


i 


4 


25486—2 

























18 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



Sections of the Ry. Act. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


Totals 


Minos and Minerals, Sections 
104-108 




1 

1 

1 


1 


1 














1 




4 


Exprop. of Lands, Sections 189- 

192 




1 




1 




1 


5 


Appeals to Supreme Court 


1 


1 
13 

2 

14 
5 

7 
1 


2 

16 
3 
2 
16 

21 
...... 


12 

2 

3 

16 
3 

19 
3 


4 


Compensation for Damage, Sec- 
tions 213-221 


1 

18 
1 
1 

28 

7 

27 








1 
11 

4 

33 
5 

22 






6 


Branch Lines Rv. Sections 180- 
187 


14 

1 
1 

15 

6 

6 
1 


10 

2 

8 

9 

1 


19 

2 

1 

34 
5 

20 

2 


14 

3 

1 

27 
3 

18 


12 

1 

1 

25 
5 

34 


9 

3 

2 

22 
8 

25 


9 

2 

3 

25 
5 

23 


157 


Rv. Crossings and Jet. Sections 
252-254 


20 


Interlocking Appliances, Section 

252 


21 


Highway Crossings, Sections 
255-267 


263 


Highway Div., Section 256 

Protection at Crossing, Sections 
257-267 


52 
231 


Tele, and Tel. Lines, Section 367 


8 


Tela. Wire Xg., Section 372 












1 


Telephone Wire Xg., Section 372 




1 
1 

12 


















. i 


2 


Power Wire Xg., Section 372. . . . 


2 
34 


2 

20 

1 
1 


2 
24 


4 

24 

1 


1 
10 


1 

20 


7 


4 

27 

1 


2 
13 


1 

17 
1 


20 


375 


19 


227 


Canals, Ditches, Etc., Sections 
268-271 


4 


Water Pipes, Section 269 






1 




2 




4 


Gas Pipes, Section 162 








2 












2 


Sewers, Section 269 






1 


















1 


Culverts, Section 269 






1 
3 


1 


2 

3 
1 
1 


2 


1 

4 








i 

1 
1 
1 


6 


Farm Crossings, Sections 272- 
273 




1 


3 


1 
3 




1 


19 


Cattleguards, Section 274 . 




3 


Fencing of R. of W., Section 274. 


1 


1 


3 


....„ 

11 

1 
6 


3 


1 


3 


3 




20 
4 


Bridges, Sections, 249-251 

Tunnels, Sections 249-251 

Stations, Section 188 


14 
1 
1 
1 

1 
2 
1 


4 
1 
2 
4 

9 


4 

1 
5 


6 

2 
6 

1 

9 
1 
1 
5 
10 
1 


1 


34 
3 
4 


6 
3 
2 


6 
4 
1 


10 
2 
3 


5 
3 
5 


16 


126 
28 
39 




6 


Station Accommodation, Sta- 


4 
1 


6 
...... 

7 
11 

2 


8 
1 


1 
3 


1 
1 


4 
5 


17 
5 


3 
2 


3 
3 


66 


Opening of Ry., Sections 276-277 
Condition of Ry., Section 283.. . 


24 
3 


Rolling Stock, Sections 298-301 . 


4 
3 
3 


8 
9 
2 


5 
9 
4 

1 

7 

1 
64 


4 
...... 


4 
3 
13 


2 
4 
4 


3 
4 
6 


1 
5 
3 


1 

1 
1 


44 




1 
1 


60 


Working of Trains, Section 287. . 
Obstruction to Traffic, Section 
311.... 


41 
1 


Accom. for Traffic, Section 312. 
Dangerous Commodities, Sec- 
tions 349-350 . . 


6 


5 


1 


7 


8 


6 


10 


5 


3 


7 


3 


68 
1 


Accident Reports, Sections 285- 
286 


51 
1 


48 


60 


38 


33 


50 


45 


75 
1 


78 


49 


66 


657 


Fires from Loco., Sections 280- 
281-287-387 


2 


Bv-laws re Tolls 


2 




















2 






1 
1 


1 
1 












1 






3 


Freight Class'n., Section 322. 


5 




1 


1 


1 






1 
1 
5 

4 
1 
5 

2 


1 

8 

1 

1 
...... 


12 


Forms of Tariffs', Sections 323- 
327 


1 
3 






2 


Disallowance of Tariffs, Section 
325 








1 




1 
1 

1 


3 

1 


3 
1 


3 
1 


24 


Standard Frt. Tariffs, Section 
330 


1 


.,.„. 


1 


7 


Standard Pass. Tariffs, Section 
334 




1 


11 














1 




3 

1 


3 

1 


4 
1 


6 

8 

1 

8 
1 
8 






11 
10 


65 
3 


33 

1 


12 
5 


151 


Special Freight Tariffs, Section 

331 

Special Pass. Tariffs, Section 335 

Provision for Carriage, Sections 

344-348 


3 

8 
2 
4 

1 

1 


3 

1 

4 
1 

""2 


38 

2 


5 


6 

1 
4 


2 
1 
5 


""0' 
6 


1 


9 


4 
1 
6 


4 


2 


53 




13 


Carriage by Express, Section 364 
Telephone Tolls, Section 375 


1 


3 


6 


4 

1 


6 
1 

...... 


53 

7 


Amalgamation Agreements, 
Section 151, 153 






1 




3 


















1 


Statistics and Returns, Sections 
370-384 


8 

1 






2 
7 
3 
2 
59 
10 


5 
3 
1 

57 
8 


1 

4 
3 


""2 
4 


1 
..... 

1 

48 

3 


3 


4 

4 




9 


Claims and Refunds 


2 
2 


3 
6 


1 
3 


2 

1 


46 


Enquiries 


30 




4 




30 
3 


30 

7 


26 
8 


44 

4 


46 
4 


30 
2 


39 

2 


38 
3 


54 
2 


501 




56 






Totals 


214 


199 


261 


321 


282 


322 


310 


323 


311 


331 


246 


287 


3.407 







REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 19 



APPENDIX "A" 

PRINCIPAL JUDGMENTS OF THE BOARD FOR THE YEAR ENDING 

DECEMBER 31, 1925 

APPLICATION NOVA SCOTIA SHIPPERS' ASSOCIATION et dl, re RATES ON APPLES, 
D.A.R. STATION TO HALIFAX FOR EXPORT • 

Report of Chief Traffic Officer, December 19, 1924, issued as judgment of 

the Board. 

The Dominion Atlantic Railway, on August 1, 1924, issued tariff G.R.C. 
No. 746 to be effective September 8, 1924, providing for an increase in the rates 
on green apples from its various stations to Halifax for export. The increase 
in the carload rates was approximately 4 cents per barrel, or taking the rates 
as in effect prior to those authorized by General Order No. 308 upon September 
13, 1920, as 100 per cent, the increase was from a basis of 125 per cent thereof 
to 140 per cent. 

The Nova Scotia Shippers' Association and the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' 
Association applied for suspension of the proposed increased rates and upon 
consideration of the submissions filed in support of the application the tariff 
in question was suspended by Order No. 35529, dated 8th September, pending 
hearing by the Board which was held at Halifax on October 20. 

In justification of the proposed increase in these rates the railway com- 
pany, in a memorandum filed with the Board by Mr. Flintoft under date of 
August 27, relied very largely on its financial situation, exhibits relating thereto 
being submitted. Summarizing this memorandum as. well as submission of 
counsel at the hearing, it was set out that during the calendar year 1923 there 
was an actual deficit in operating costs against revenue of approximately 
$73,000, or a cost of $123.53 to earn $100; and that for the half-year ending 
June 30, 1924, the operations showed a cost of $149.17 to earn $100, as com- 
pared with $146.73 for the corresponding half-year of 1923. The railway com- 
pany stated that under these conditions, with no prospect of improvement, 
together with a falling-off in freight revenue as well as in local passenger 
traffic, it was impossible to continue operating under present rates and main- 
tain a satisfactory service as well as keeping the property in condition for the 
continuance of efficiency of service and the movement of traffic in a safe and 
satisfactory manner. It was stated the situation of this railway company is 
worse than it was in 1920 when a 40 per cent increase in rates was authorized 
by the Board, which is justification at this time for a restoration of the 40 per 
cent increase in export apple rates. 

Attention was directed to the necessity of maintaining a large amount of 
refrigerator equipment to satisfactorily handle the apple traffic during the winter 
season, thus increasing train tonnage with no adequate return therefor in the 
charge assessed for such service over and above box-car equipment, and a state- 
ment was filed as an exhibit containing computations covering the increased 
cost of handling export apples in refrigerator cars as compared with ordinary 
box-cars. Comparative figures of both freight and passenger traffic and revenue 
w r ere given for the calendar years of 1920 and 1923 and the first six months of 
1924 as indicative of a material decline therein, and it was stated that this is in 
part due to improved public highways and automobile, motorbus and motor- 
truck competition. 

In justification for increasing the export apple rates while no increases are 
proposed in any other rates, it was alleged that there is too great a spread 
between the local and export rates and that the increase will not impose any 

25486— 2i 



20 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

undue hardship on the apple industry and will only give rates to the railway 
company commensurate with the service rendered. It was further alleged that 
the company's other rates, both class and commodity, are, generally speaking, 
as prescribed by orders of the Board and on the same basis as in effect on other 
railways in Eastern Canada, consequently this particular traffic afforded the 
only means of relief and was an increase in a tariff on traffic which could well 
stand it and which is on a lower basis than it properly should be. 

On behalf of the Nova Scotia Shippers' Association and the Nova Scotia 
Fruit Growers' Association, hereinafter referred to .as the complainants, issue 
was taken with a number of the submissions of the railway company. Epito- 
mised, the principal points advanced by complainants were: — 

1. They challenged the contention of the railway company that there is too 
great a spread between the present export and domestic rates. They submitted 
exhibits comparing the domestic and export rates from Ontario points to St. 
John, N.B., and while frankly stating there is no parity in conditions and not 
alleging that the rates here in question should be based on the Ontario rates, 
urged that if with respect to the Ontario rates it is found that the spread between 
the domestic and export rates is from 26 to 30 per cent, this is some indication 
that a spread of approximately 17 per cent in the Annapolis Valley is not an 
unreasonable spread. 

2. Complainants filed exhibits taking the year 1916 as a basis at 100 per 
cent showing that from Ontario points to St. John the domestic rates are at 
present 168.5 per cent and the export rates 178.7 per cent. From typical points 
on the Dominion Atlantic Railway to Halifax the domestic rates are at present 
182 per cent and the present export rates 203-7 per cent, and the proposed export 
227.5 per cent. The exhibits further show that in 1916 the export rates from 
Dominion Atlantic Railway stations to Halifax averaged 72-7 per cent of the 
domestic rates contemporaneously in effect, or a spread of 26-3 per cent, which 
has subsequently by various rate changes been narrowed to a spread of 17-5 
per cent, making the present export rates approximately 82-5 per cent of the 
domestic rates. Complainants stated the proposed export rates would approxi- 
mate 92 per cent of the domestic rates and alleged that under such a narrowing 
in the spread the export rates began to lose their 'character as commodity rates, 
particularly when the carload minimum weight attaching to the commodity 
rate is considered, which is 25 per cent higher than obtaining under the domestic 
rates, being 30,000 and 24,000 pounds, respectively. 

3. Attention was directed to the substantial increase made in the export 
rates here under consideration on September 10, 1919, there being no correspond- 
ing increase contemporaneously made with respect to other rates. The increase 
made in these rates at that time was in addition to the general percentage 
increase authorized by the Board for application uniformly on all steam rail- 
ways subject to its jurisdiction, and this increase explains the appreciably 
greater percentage of increase in these export rates than in the domestic rates, 
as above referred to, i.e., 203-7 per cent on the export as compared with 182 per 
cent on the domestic. Two of complainants' witnesses stated that it had been 
their understanding at the time that this increase of September, 1919, would be 
taken into account when general increases subsequently were made effective; 
however, it was not. # 

4. An exhibit was submitted — intended to be considered in 'conjunction 
with an exhibit filed by the railway company — purporting to show that the 
revenue returns to the railway on this export apple traffic indicated that it is a 
profitable traffic, and alleging from this exhibit and other computations sub- 
mitted that the loss shown by the railway company's figures of operating cost 
is attributable entirely to their traffic in commodities other than apples. 

5. Complainants submitted that if the financial requirements of the rail- 
way necessitated an inciease in rates there should be a general overhauling of 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 21 

the rates, as it would be intolerable to the apple industry to saddle the entire 
increase on the one particular traffic, viz., apples moving for export. 

So far as relates to the use of refrigerator cars and the additional cost 
thereby imposed upon the railway company over the movement in ordinary 
box-cars, there was quite a discrepancy between the figures of the railway and 
the complainants covering the winter movement of 1923-24. The railway 
originally filed an exhibit showing 874,000 barrels handled in refrigerator cars. 
This was disputed by complainants who claim the proper figure to be 540,000 
barrels, or approximately one-half the yearly movement. The railway then 
admitted an error in its figures and claimed that these should read 608,661 
barrels. Counsel for the railway alleged that the rates were originally estab- 
lished based on a movement in ordinary box-cars only, but having in view that 
these rates were revised by the railway company itself in 1915 and approved 
by the Board by order No. 24489, dated November 27, 1915, at which time it is 
believed that refrigerator cars were used as well as box-cars, I am of the opinion 
the contention of the railway company that the rates contemplated shipments 
in box-cars only is inconclusive. At any rate, subsequent to the original estab- 
lishment of the rates the railway company, in 1917, established a tariff pro- 
vision under which they make an additional charge of $3 per trip on these 
export apples and vegetables when moved in refrigerator cars, which is just 
that much additional revenue, although it is alleged by the railway that it is 
not an amount commensurate) with the difference in cost. No evidence was 
adduced indicating specifically what change, if any, has taken place in recent 
years in the percentage of traffic hauled in refrigerator and box-cars, respec- 
tively. I do not consider the railway sufficiently developed its contention on 
this point to warrant the Board giving it very much weight. 
Counsel for the railway stated: — 

" . . . . the railway has to keep an adequate supply of refrig- 
erator cars on hand and on call for these shippers, no matter whether 
they are used or not; and these cars have been idle and have had to 
remain idle, if my instructions are correct, since March of this year. 
Not only are they an expensive item to carry over the railway, on 
account of their heavy weight and small capacity as compared with the 
box cars, but they have been compelled to keep them idle since last 
March, in order to provide them and have them here for this particular 
trade and traffic." 

According to the railway company's reports it owns no refrigerator cars. It is 
assumed it rents them from its parent company, the Canadian Pacific Railway. 
It is stated these cars stand idle from March to November. It is noted from 
the company's reports that under the heading of non-operating expenses there 
is an item " Hire of freight cars " which it is noted in the year 1919 amounted 
to $45,015.82, and in 1923 to $102,842.94. There is another item under the same 
heading, " Rent for all other equipment ", which increased from $9,960.04 in 1919 
to $31,790.91 in 1923. There has been nothing submitted to the Board indicating 
whether the rental of these refrigerator cars comes under one of these headings, 
or any particulars as to the nature of the compensation paid for their use, espe- 
cially during the long period of March to November when they are lying idle. 
When the handling of traffic in refrigerator cars is stressed by the railway, as 
in this case, it seems to me that in view of the fact that it owns no cars of this 
type some explanation and details of the arrangement under which it provides 
them, and the compensation paid therefor, is relevant so far as its effect on the 
operating cost of the railway is concerned. 

Comparative figures for 1920 and 1923 were submitted by the railway as 
indicating a material decline in freight and passenger traffic. The figures for 
the first six months of 1924 are also given but these, without comparative figures 
for the same period of the preceding year, and being for the lightest half of the 



22 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

year so far as freight traffic, at any rate, is concerned, do not permit of any 
definite conclusions being drawn therefrom. I submit that a comparison as 
between 1920 and 1923 is not a proper one as indicating a decline in the volume 
of traffic handled, because 1920 was the year in which this railway handled by 
far the largest traffic in its history; in other words, that year was abnormal and 
therefore not a proper one to use for comparative purposes. Below is set out 
the number of tons and passengers carried for the years 1915-1923, inclusive, 
as contained in the company's reports as found in the annual publication of the 
Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 

Tons Passengers 

Carried Carried 

*1915 326,628 407,492 

*1916 344,397 466,550 

*1917 399,106 519,867 

*191S 435,265 430,225 

1919 , 433,644 532,586 

1920 572,323 538,636 

1921 418,536 459,894 

1922 422,975 458,694 

1923 431,595 441,993 

* Year ending June 30 ; other years ending December 31. 

The last three years have shown an upward trend in the number of tons 
carried, but a downward trend in the number of passengers carried, although it 
will be noted more passengers were carried in 1923 than in 1918. The figures, 
when extended for a sufficient period to enable them to be viewed in proper 
perspective, speak for themselves on this phase of the railway company's sub- 
mission. 

In justification of the proposed increase in export apple rates the company 
relied largely and mainly upon the figures it submitted as to the financial results 
of its operations for the year 1923 and first half of 1924. Deficits in operating 
costs against revenue were stressed. For the half-year ending June 30, 1924, 
there were no details furnished showing segregation of the operating revenue as 
between freight and passenger traffic, nor any details whatever showing the 
various items making up the total given for operating expenses. No figures 
for the same period of 1923 were furnished. The railway company did not, 
therefore, give any detailed explanations of their figures and these are not avail- 
able, so that obviously no analysis whatever can be made of these half-year 
figures, consequently, in the form submitted, I consider them of no value to 
the Board as enabling it to draw any definite conclusions from them one way 
or the other. 

Below is shown the exhibit filed by the railway company for its 1923 
operations: — 

EARNINGS AND EXPENSES, YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1923 

Operating: revenue $1,896,075 52 Operating expenses $1,874,115 70 

Revenue^from outside operations. 105,965 44 Taxes 18.778 23 

Rent of Windsor Branch . . . . 83.226 90 
Expenses of outside operations. 99,344 15 



$2,002,040 96 $2,075,464 98 

Interest on acquired securities . . 7,500 00 Debenture interest 239,926 67 

Miscellaneous interest 699 27 Depreciation 174,469 50 

Exchange on cash transferred 

to London, covering debenture 

interest 5,349 25 

Deficit 474,271 67 

$2,489,861 15 $2,489,861 15 



For year ending December 31, 1923 it cost Dominion Atlantic Railway $123.53 to, earn 
$100, as compared with $107.44 for previous year. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 



23 



On the strength of these figures the railway company alleges the increase 
in rates is justified. No comparative figures of similar character were filed for 
1922, and so far as the record stands the only clue to the condition in 1922 
is to be found in the notation at the bottom of the above exhibit stating that 
for 1923 it cost $123.53 to earn $100 as compared with $107.44 for previous year." 
The foregoing, with no details or explanations bearing thereon, is the material 
placed upon the record for the consideration of the Board. The railway com- 
pany had alluded to diminishing traffic, yet the foregoing figures indicate a very 
large increase in operating expenses, which immediately creates a desire for 
additional details, unfortunately not available on the record. Upon referring to 
the annual reports issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in order to 
make comparison between 1923 and 1922, marked increases in certain operating 
costs became apparent which made it seem advisable to take out some particu- 
lars over a period of years in order that, if possible, the matter misjht be better 
understood. Certain figures were therefore taken for the years 1919 to 1923, 
inclusive. The year 1919 was chosen as the starting point because this was the 
first year for which the figures were recorded for the calendar year and also 
for the reason that to go beyond that year would be getting back to the period 
when wages and costs generally w r ere on a very much lower basis, so that the 
comparison would not be very helpful. The following operating statistics for 
the calendar years 1919 to 1923, inclusive, are as reported bjr the railway com- 
pany and published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 



DOMINION ATLANTIC RAILWAY 



Statement No. 1 



Earnings from Operation 

From Passenger 

Freight and Switching 

Other Earnings from Operation 
Total Earnings from Operation 

Operating Expenses 
Maintenance of Way and 

Structures 

Maintenance of Equipment 

Traffic 

Transportation (Rail Line) 

General Expenses 

Total Operating Expenses 

Net Operating Earnings 



Operating Income 
Net Operating Revenue. . 
Railway Tax Accruals. . . 
Net Operating Income. . . 



Outside Operations 
Revenue from Outside Opera- 
tions 

Expenses for Outside Operations 
Net Revenue from Outside 

Operations 

Taxes on Outside Operations . . 
Net Income from Outside 

Operations 

Total Operating Income 



Non-Operating Income 

Other Properties Income 

Income from Funds and Secur- 
ities 

Miscellaneous Income 

Total Non-Operating Income. . 
Gross Corporate Income 



1919 



cts. 



770, 145 88 

1,047,881 45 

31,235 02 

1,849,262 35 



418,651 07 
207,517 54 

40,809 91 
842,826 99 

65,426 22 

1,575,231 73 

274,030 62 



274,030 62 

13,392 82 

260,637 80 



36,298 33 
34,739 86 

1,558 47 



1,558 47 
262, 196 27 



14,625 00 



14,625 00 

276,821 27 



1920 



cts. 



822,229 90 

1,332,298 22 

34,619 06 

2,189,147 18 



475,164 65 

275,629 36 

67,347 00 

1,073,062 04 

92,671 37 

1,983,874 42 

205,272 76 



205,272 76 

17,922 59 

187,350 17 



110,539 34 
104,086 58 

6,452 76 



6,452 76 
193,802 93 



11,827 97 



11,827 97 
205,630 90 



1921 



cts. 



776,504 16 

1,360,371 09 

26,656 10 

2,163,531 35 



411,998 37 

209,209 86 

48,643 05 

916,453 33 

88,031 44 

1,674,336 05 

489,195 30 



489,195 30 

18,280 68 

470,914 62 



118,802 23 
104,779 81 

14,022 42 



14,022 42 
484,937 04 



7,503 20 

16,030 00 

23,533 20 

508,470 24 



1922 



cts, 



745,938 48 

1,275,603 02 

34,678 03 

2,056,219 53 



380,002 82 
252,476 77 

54,458 60 
853,892 72 

85,742 47 
,626,573 38 
429,646 15 



429,646 15 

19,113 36 

410,532 79 



111,995 13 
92,831 25 

19,163 88 
910 16 

18,253 72 
428 786 51 



7,540 70 

10,965 50 

18,506 20 

447,292 71 



1923 



st.c 



•744,206 50 

1,250,895 14 

36,232 69 

2,031,334 33 



477,110 83 

380,332 23 

49,419 11 

873,841 64 

93,411 89 

1,874,115 70 

157,218 63 



157,218 63 

18,778 23 

138,440 40 



105,965 44 

98,430 54 

7,534 90 

913 61 

6,621 29 

145,061 69 



7,501 60 

6,046 92 

13,548 52 

158,610 21 



24 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 
DOMINION ATLANTIC RAILWAY— Concluded 



Statement No. 1 



— 


1919 


1920 


1921 


1922 


1923 


N ox-Operating Expenses 
Hire of Freight Cars (Debit 


$ cts. 

45,015 82 

9,960 04 

624 96 

71,734 45 

239,926 67 
367,261 94 


$ cts. 

98,433 32 

35,605 04 

624 96 

86,215 98 

239,926 67 
460,805 97 


$ cts. 

73,637 71 

31,396 74 

624 96 

84,338 20 

239,926 67 

429,924 28 

78,545 96 


$ cts. 

74,388 51 

30,840 36 

624 96 

81,920 15 

239,926 67 

427,700 65 

19,592 06 


$ cts. 

102,842 94 

31,790 91 

624 96 


Rent for all other Equipment. 


Rent for Leased Roads 

Interest on Funded and Un- 
funded (Debt) 


83,226 90 
239,926 67 


Total Non-Operating Expenses 


458,412 38 




90,440 67 


255,175 07 


299,802 17 









I have not made any analysis whatever of any other portion of the com- 
pany's finances or activities beyond the one item of operating expenses. This 
is the item which was stressed at the hearing and the only one here dealt with. 
It will be observed that without any appreciable difference in the volume of 
traffic handled there was an increase of $247,542.32 in operating expenses in 
1923. Abnormal increases apparently are shown under the following headings: — 

1922 1923 

Maintenance of way and structures $380,002 82 $477,110 83 

Maintenance of equipment 252,476 77 380,332 23 

It will be noted from the statistics shown in Statement No. 1 that the 
1923 figures exceed by a large amount those of any other year in the company's 
history. The details making up the amounts under these subheadings have 
therefore been extracted for the same years and are as follows: — 

DOMINION ATLANTIC RAILWAY 

Statement No. 2 

Detailed Statement of Operating Expenses, maintenance op Way and Structures 



1919 



1920 



1921 



1922 



1923 



Superintendence 

Roadway Maintenance 

Bridges, Trestles and Culverts 

Ties 

Rails 

Other track material 

Ballast 

Tracklaying and Surfacing 

Right of way fences 

Snow and Sand Fences and Snow Sheds. . 

Crossings and Signs 

Station and Office Buildings 

Roadway Buildings 

Water Stations 

Fuel Stations 

Shops and Engine Houses 

Wharves and Docks 

Telegraph and Telephone Lines 

Signals and Interlockers 

Miscellaneous Structures 

Roadway Machines 

Small Tools and Supplies 

Removing Snow, Ice and Sand 

Injuries to Persons 

Stationery and Printing 

Other Expenses 

Total Maintenance of Way and Structures 



$ cts. 

14,537 80 

55,157 90 

15,562 00 

15,124 57 

24,000 00 

22,794 54 

12,329 04 

138,717 10 

7,072 27 

36 88 

8,308 09 

17,915 56 

538 63 

2,191 64 

1,004 93 

4,239 51 

710 37 

1,256 44 

16 26 

159 22 

1,201 78 

4,492 70 

1,605 07 

5 00 

168 53 

462 24 



$ cts. 

16,004 53 

42,133 94 

20, 170 96 

106,021 10 

24,000 00 

32,494 77 

6,259 80 

137,534 37 

8,584 22 



$ cts. 

12,978 12 
31,487 06 
30,921 06 

103,157 50 
24,000 00 
19,676 43 
11,613 43 

127,156 92 
7,883 80 



$ cts, 

12,725 37 
42,944 03 
39,216 54 
80,009 88 
24,000 00 
15,233 78 

4,722 22 
102,487 68 

7,058 05 



$ cts. 

13,564 62 
41,641 82 
33,655 78 
77,002 94 
60,000 00 
14,341 14 

9,236 85 
102,597 81 

6,516 28 



292 62 

35,454 87 

310 54 

3,452 33 

1,747 39 

19,324 47 

1,201 63 

451 84 

29 38 

18 30 

2,308 19 

3,893 34 

13,065 47 



3,242 51 

9,272 32 

31 27 

3,349 45 

441 41 
8,883 95 
2,182 83 

390 03 



7 22 
2,785 86 
3,237 59 
9,018 86 



4,552 32 

16,507 45 

312 65 

3,833 08 
214 21 

6, 190 82 
880 06 
441 85 
124 92 
133 98 

2,942 35 

3,332 39 
11,769 76 



282 45 
128 14 



135 03 
145 72 



244 73 
124 71 



5,980 43 

26,847 46 

270 45 

5,680 42 

738 03 

8,011 26 

2,713 62 

806 52 

257 42 

173 70 

2,497 29 

4,081 59 

59,598 55 

455 65 

305 45 

135 75 



418,651 07 



475,164 65 



411,998 37 



380,002 82 



477,110 83 



*C red it Items 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 

Maintenance of Equipment 



25 



Superintendence 

Shop machinery 

Power plant machinery 

Steam locomotives — Repairs... 
Steam locomotives — Renewals. 
Freight train cars — Repairs 
Passenger train cars — Repairs . . 

Work equipment — Repairs 

Work equipment — Renewals 

Stationery and printing 

Other expenses 

Freight train cars — Renewals. . 



Total maintenance of equipment. 



1919 



7,312 46 

2,810 39 

835 25 

105, 154 51 

12,000 00 

39,568 50 

34,695 53 

5,206 77 



131 72 
>197 59 



207,517 54 



1920 



9,577 70 

2,827 98 

908 61 

140, 156 58 

12,000 00 

61,508 35 

41,359 90 

7,121 21 



169 03 



275,629 36 



1921 



7,769 23 

1,609 79 

99 42 

107,592 95 

12,000 00 

44,430 54 

32,633 48 

2,807 86 



265 09 
1 50 



209,209 



1922 



7,680 75 

3,880 76 

160 61 

145,014 08 

12,000 00 

45,008 62 

32,310 54 

6,013 39 



408 02 



252,476 77 



1923 



7, 609 32 

20,225 17 

620 91 

199, 190 84 

12,000 00 

55,420 34 

54,498 97 

18,160 92 

9,758 71 

324 57 



2,522 48 



332 23 



*Credit items. 

The items making up the principal increases are as follows: — 



1922 



1923 



Increases 



% 



Rails 

Removing snow, ice and sand . 

Shop machinery 

Steam locomotive repairs 

Freight train cars, repairs 

Passenger train cars, repairs. . 

Work equipment, repairs 

Work equipment, renewals 
Freight train cars, renewals. . . 



$ cts. 

24,000 00 
11,769 76 

3,880 76 

145,014 08 

45,008 62 

32,310 54 

6,013 39 



cts, 

000 00 
598 55 
225 17 

190 84 
420 34 
498 97 
160 92 

758 71 
522 48 



S cts. 

36,000 00 

47,828 79 
16,344 41 
54, 176 76 
10,411 72 
22, 188 43 
12, 147 53 
9,758 71 
2,522 48 



150 

406 

421 

37 

23 

68 

202 



267,997 15 



479,375 98 



211,378 83 



78-8 



Taking the same items for previous years there is no apparent explanation 
to be obtained from a study of the figures such as indicating deferred main- 
tenance, etc. The figures for 1922 are in themselves a substantial increase over 
1921. In fact, according to the submissions of counsel for the railway company 
there has been no deferred maintenance in recent years but, on the other hand, 
the road and equipment have been brought to a much higher standard. Counsel 
stated at page 7283: — 

" . . . for a number of years past its efficiency has been very much 
improved. It has been put almost if not quite upon a standard basis, 
both as regards rolling stock and equipment of various kinds; and the 
manner in which it has discharged its obligations to the public in that 
respect has been commented upon very favourably by the shippers them- 
selves." 

Standing by themselves and without explanation of any kind these figures 
appear to be entirely abnormal for the year 1923. If they are not abnormal 
an explanation should have been put in the record; if they are abnormal then 
the Board is not, in my opinion, warranted in granting an increase on this par- 
ticular traffic alone based merely on the operating results of a single year contain- 
ing an unascertained and unstated percentage or amount of operating expenses 
which are abnormal. 

With regard to the suggestion of the railway company that this is the only 
item of traffic on which its rates could very well be increased, I do not consider 
their statement to be at all conclusive, nor do I attach much weight to their 
representation as to the spread between domestic and export rates. There is no 



26 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

recognized spread between these two classes of rates anywhere, and each case 
requires to be dealt with individually and on its merits and without reference 
to any particular spread. 

Another feature in this connection is that at the time the tariff covering 
these proposed increased export apple rates was issued on August 1, 1924, the 
Dominion Atlantic Railway were required to absorb a switching charge on this 
traffic at Halifax of $5 per car. 

Paragraph 8 of their submission of August 15th, subsequently deleted, 
referred to this as being another feature that entered seriously into the matter 
of freight rates on export apples. At that time the railway company had not 
received, of course, a copy of the Board's Order No. 35457 (subsequently amended 
by Order No. 35735), dated August 7, 1924, which granted relief to the Dominion 
Atlantic Railway Company in connection with this switching charge, to the 
extent that the amount they absorb has been reduced from $5 per car to $2.50 
per car. It is stated the average number of barrels per box-car is 223 and per 
refrigerator car 212, and that the traffic is roughly divided between these two 
classes of equipment 50 per cent to each. This would make an average of 217 
barrels per car, on which the Dominion Atlantic Railway, by virtue of the 
Order issued subsequent to the tariff in question, effects a saving of $2.50 per 
car, or 1.15 cents per barrel. On the quantity of apples exported via Halifax 
in 1923, viz., 1,152,134 barrels, this would make a saving in revenue to the 
Dominion Atlantic Railway of $13,249.54 on this export apple traffic. In 
addition, there is a similar saving on potatoes, lumber and other traffic ex water 
or for furtherance by water, the amount of which I would not attempt to 
estimate. It will be observed, therefore, that this is a by no means small item 
and one that was not contemplated when the proposed tariff was issued. 

Under all the circumstances, I do not consider the railway company's case 
was sufficiently developed to enable it to succeed in this application and recom- 
mend that no increase be allowed in these rates for the present. 

COMPLAINT MANITOBA GOVERNMENT LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION re CARLOAD 
COMMODITY RATE ON LIQUORS, WINES AND SPIRITS 

Judgment oi the Assistant Chief Commissioner, December SI, 192 A, concurred 
in by Mr. Commissioners Boyce and Oliver 



The matter involved was set down for hearing at Saskatoon, Edmonton, 
Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, and Winnipeg. 

The initial complaint in this matter came from the Government Liquor 
Control Commission of Manitoba, hereinafter spoken of as the Liquor Com- 
mission. In this, protest was made against the cancellation of class rates. It 
was alleged that the cancellation of class rates under tariff C.R.C. No. 127 was 
intended simply as a means to try and defeat certain claims for overcharges 
which had been filed by the Liquor Commission. No further details were filed. 

The Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, through its Saskatchewan 
Branch, filed through its provincial secretary a protest against the cancellation 
of class rates, alleging that such cancellation made an increase in import rates. 
No detail was given. 

The Winnipeg Board of Trade filed a protest against the cancellation of 
class rates, stating that these class rates had been published for many years 
and were an absolute necessity for importers who used this service in comparing 
quotations with other markets ; also as a basis in quoting on contracts in ascer- 
taining definite laid down costs. 

The Edmonton Board of Trade protested against the change until satisfac- 
tory reason for the elimination of the class rates had been filed. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 27 

The Calgary Board of Trade asked for suspension pending the filing of 
satisfactory explanation by the railways. 

Mr. A. Chard, Freight and Traffic Supervisor of the Province of Alberta, 
filed a protest against the cancellation of the class rates. In this connection he 
used the following language: — 

" It is true that special commodity rates are named on some com- 
modities, but there are many articles imported from Europe to Western 
Canada which are not so covered. On such articles, it is not possible to 
estimate costs in advance on account of the fluctuations of boat charges 
which necessarily follow as part of the through charges." 

The Associated Boards of Trade of British Columbia filed a protest against 
the change in tariff C.R.C. No. 126 which made the same changes in respect of 
British Columbia as were covered in regard to the Prairie Provinces under tariff 
C.R.C. No. 127 already referred to. Protest was lodged against the change 
being made until such time " as a satisfactory reason is given for the elimination 
of the class rates from this tariff ". 

A similar protest was filed by the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. 

At the hearings, it was found that with the exception of the Retail Mer- 
chants' Association and the Liquor Commission, the various bodies and 
individuals who had made representations withdrew their complaints. Their 
general position was that the explanations given by the railways were satisfac- 
tory, and that they were satisfied the railways were trying to take care of the 
traffic which offered by issuing commodity rates. 

The traffic representative of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, Mr. Hamilton, 
stated that it was convenient to have the class rates in existence. He stated 
there were some articles imported which were not covered by commodity rates, 
and that these were stated by the Canadian Freight Association to amount *o 
5 per cent of the traffic, or perhaps less. 

The following discussion shows that the situation is, in the minds of the 
trade representatives, adequately taken care of by the existing arrangements 
as to commodity rates: — 

" The Assistant Chifj? Commissioner: Are you informed that any 
particular articles imported in amount are affected by the removal of 
these class rates? We have been trying to get some information upon 
that question at different points, but have not been very successful. I 
would like to have something definite, if we could get it. 

" Mr. Hamilton : I have one or two representatives of the wholesale 
houses here, from whom I might perhaps get the information. 

"The Assistant Chief Commissioner: All right, we will be glad 
to have it. 

" Mr. Hamilton: I will call first upon Mr. Maiuish, Traffic Manager 
of the J. H. Ashdown Hardware Company of Winnipeg, Can you answer 
the Chairman's question, Mr. Maiuish? 

"Mr. Maltjish: When the cancellation took place, we made appli- 
cation to the railways to have established less than carload commodity 
rates on the items which were affected, and up to the present time there 
is not any item which we import which is not taken care of. 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Taken care of satisfactorily 
by commodity rates? 

"Mr. Maluish: Yes. 

"Mr. Hamilton: I am not going to stress the point; I am merely 
raising it. 



28 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: On the basis of Mr. 
Maluish's evidence, I would not say that there was any necessity for it." 

At Saskatoon, the Retail Merchants' Association was represented. It was 
contended that while a substitute in the form of a supplement quoting com- 
modity rates on various articles had been published to take the place of what 
had formerly been covered by the class rates, the rates so filed involved 
increases. 

It was pointed out to the applicant that under the practice hitherto opera- 
tive and the tariff practice under the rule now operative, the maximum charge 
allowable is the ocean rate, plus the rail rate from point of entry. 

II 

The practice of quoting through import rates covering ocean and rail move- 
ments is one which has been of long-standing. It was represented in evidence 
that the quotation of the through import rate was of importance to the merchant, 
because it enabled him to ascertain definite laid down costs. The quotation 
of such a rate averaging as it does the ocean factor enables the merchant to 
discount the fluctuations in boat charges. 

Just how long tariffs of this nature have been in existence was not developed 
in evidence. The chairman of the Canadian Freight Association stated that 
although he had tried to trace this arrangement back to its origin, he had not 
been able to find the original basis for the class rates. 

The tariffs have provided both through class and commodity rates, but the 
through class rates have been applicable only where the movement is relatively 
slight and somewhat discontinuous. Where the movements have been relatively 
important in amount and continuous, they have been looked after by the com- 
modity rates; and as pointed out in another connection, the railways in removing 
the class rates stand prepared to substitute commodity rates where there is any 
movement of appreciable amount. 

The filing of a through class rate in regard to a movement involving in 
part a water haul not subject to the Board's jurisdiction, is, on the face of it, 
anomalous, because the provisions of the Railway Act in regard to the classifi- 
cation do not apply on an ocean movement; but, as pointed out, the through 
class rates were intended to be a general way of taking care of the less impor- 
tant movements not covered by commodity rates. From this, it would follow 
that the railways had in mind that where the movement became important in 
amount commodity rates would be applied. 

The tariffs involved in the present application name through rates from 
European ports to stations in Western Canada. Prior to 1918, they were pub- 
lished by the Canadian railways individually. In that year, the individual tariff 
issues were cancelled, and since that time a single tariff has been published for 
and on behalf of the railways. 

Rates published in the tariff in question are constructed on a combination 
of the ocean line proportion, plus the local domestic rates from Montreal, or as 
applicable from the port of Baltimore through Chicago and St. Paul if lower; 
and the through rates so arrived at are also made applicable via Quebec and 
the ports of St. John, West St. John, Halifax and Portland. 

The explanation given by the railways in regard to a movement on class 
rates and commodity rates is set out as follows: — 

" 1. (a) The class rates were originally established for the purpose 
of taking care of an occasional shipment which might not be covered by 
a through commodity rate. 

"(b) In a great number of instances, owing to the light and bulky 
nature of the goods moving under the class rates, there is not sufficient 
to allow the ocean and rail carriers fair freight revenue on the through 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 29 

rate basis. In the great majority of cases, the goods are so light as to 
measure anywhere up to five and six times per ton measurement of 40 
cubic feet to the ton weight of 2,240 pounds. Therefore, it will be 
observed from rule 2, Tariff 11-G, and corresponding rule in Tariff 10-E, 
the following provision was made: — 

" 'Whenever a commodity rate is established, it removes the 

application of the class rate on that commodity.' 

"(c) The carriers from time to time cover any traffic that is moving 
in volume by specific commodity rates. 

" 2. The basis for the class rates was arrived at by taking an arbi- 
trary rate in cents per 100 pounds, approximating the ocean rate, but 
this had no definite relation to the actual ocean rate for the reason that 
the ocean carriers invariably endeavour to make their rates on a weight 
or measurement basis whichever yields the steamship the greater revenue, 
e.g., an ocean steamer has a limited capacity of so many cubic feet of 
cargo and it is essential that they should endeavour to get an average 
freight rate for every cubic foot of space. 

" Ocean rates from British and foreign ports vary on the different 
commodities shown under one class in the railway classification, and even 
vary on the same commodity from different ports by reason of competi- 
tive conditions. There is no classification such as is commonly used to 
govern railway rates. 

" It might also be mentioned that ocean freight rates are quoted in 
sterling, franc or other foreign currency, and are quoted so much per 
measurement ton of 40 cubic feet, or according to continential usage per 
cubic meter of 35-3 cubic feet, or alternatively per gross ton weight of 
2,240 pounds, or per 1,000 kilograms of 2,204-6 pounds. 

" 3. It is extremely difficult to give the Board the actual percentage 
of import traffic moving under class rates, but the best judgment of the 
officials handling import traffic is that it would not exceed five" per cent 
and is probably very much less. 

" General. — For the information of the Board, it is pointed out that 
there are no through tariffs from European ports to interior points on 
the American continent other than those in effect via Canadian ports 
(in this connection Portland being considered a Canadian port). All 
import traffic moving via United States Atlantic ports is handled on the 
basis of the actual ocean rate plus the actual inland rate. 

" Occasionally, owing to the method of packing or the variation in 
relative weight and measurement of the same commodity, the actual 
ocean rate plus the actual rail rate works out a lower through combina- 
tion than the through commodity rate. In such instances, the shipper 
or consignee is given the benefit of such actual ocean and rail rates as 
against the through commodity rates. 

" In further explanation of this point, it is submitted that it is almost 
impossible to arrive at the actual ocean weight and measurement of 
goods under a particular commodity heading for the reason that some 
shippers' goods weigh heavier than others. Furthermore, some shippers 
protect their goods in packing to a greater extent than others, Which 
results in a greater measurement to the ton weight. 

" We have received nothing from the complainants direct or through 
the Board indicating what effect the cancellation of the class rates in 
Tariff 11-G will have on their business, and we trust the Board, on due 
consideration of the conditions as set forth herein, will agree that we are 
justified in cancelling the class rates referred to and will so advise the 
complainants." 



30 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Tariff C.R.C. No. 127 published through freight rates from European ports 
to Armstrong. Fort William, Port Arthur and Westfort and stations west thereof 
in Canada, except to points in British Columbia which were covered by Tariff 
C.R.C. No. 126. 

Both of these tariffs named class and commodity rates. In various cases, 
the commodity rates were on a higher basis than the class rates. The commodity 
rates were constructed on a combination of ocean line proportion and inland 
rate, as already referred to herein, and the basis for the -class rates is as set out 
in Part 2 of railway's explanation above quoted. 

In the supplements to which exception was taken, the class rates have been 
cancelled, leaving in effect only the commodity rates; and the supplements bear 
the notation: — 

" On commodities other than those specifically mentioned in the 
tariff, the actual ocean rates to the seaboard, plus the inland rate from 
port of importation will apply." 

The tariff concerned quotes through rates made up of a combination of a 
proportion of the ocean rate and the inland rate. In the case of ocean trans- 
portation, the rates vary on different commodities which are shown in one class 
in the Railway Freight Classification, and even vary on the same commodity 
from different European ports by reason of competitive conditions. As already 
pointed out, there is no classification governing ocean rates as. there is in the 
case of rail rates. 

Further factors affect ocean rates which do not enter into the case of rail 
rates. In rail rates, the charge per 100 pounds is the unit in the case of ocean 
carriage, rates may be based on bulk or on weight, the charge in general being 
based on the unit which gives the highest return. 

The ocean factor entering into the through rate is described as the ocean 
line proportion. This is not the actual ocean rate; but, according to the sub- 
missions made, it represents a reduction of approximately 20 per cent. It has 
appeared to be necessary to strike an average ocean proportion in order to enable 
the publication of a through rate; and, as a result, it occasionally happens that 
on account of the method of packing or variation in relative weight and measure- 
ment of the same commodity under different conditions, the actual ocean rate, 
plus the actual rail rate from point of discharge to destination produces a lower 
through combination than the through commodity rate. 

The railway companies have stated that in such instances it has always 
been the practice to give consignors and consignees the benefit, as a maximum, 
of such actual ocean and rail rates, if lower than the published through rate. 

The matter is now specifically provided for in Supplement 6 to Tariff C.R.C. 
No. 127, in rule 17, which reads: — 

" When the actual ocean rate plus the inland rate from port of dis- 
charge to destination makes lower than the through rates published in 
tariff and effective supplements thereto, such combination will apply." 
That is to say, there is formally set out in rule what had been the practice 
before. 

Ill 

Counsel for the Liquor Commission referred especially to Tariff C.R.C. No. 
127, effective June 18, 1923, and supplements to same. It will be noted in pass- 
ing that an error in description crept into the argument. It was stated that 
Liquors were for the first time provided with a through commodity rate in the 
tariff in question. The tariffs show, however, that for at least the last ten years, 
with the exception of the period between early in 1918 and June, 1920, through 
commodity rates on Liquors have been published. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 31 

Counsel cited Supplement 4 to the tariff effective January 18, 1924, and 
stated that the class rate was cancelled and removed by the following pro- 
vision: — • 

" (a) Class rates named on page seven of the tariff, as amended, are 
hereby cancelled. On commodities other than those specifically mentioned 
in the tariff, the actual ocean rates to the seaboard, plus the inland rates 
from port of importation, will apply." 

Exception was taken to the legal status of this tariff. It was pointed out 
that it was a tariff of rates on commodities from specified European ports. 
Counsel further stated that the tariff purports on the cover to be a general one — 
an ocean and rail tariff; and the contention that it has no legal status turns on 
the position that as it is not concurred in by any ocean carrier it would not be a 
joint tariff under the Act; and it is set out that if it is not a joint tariff, then the 
railway companies have no tariff and, therefore, there is no legal tariff under the 
Railway Act under which the charge in question could be collected. 

Counsel referred to section 339 of the Railway Act which reads as follows: — 

" As respects all traffic which is carried from any point in a foreign 
country into Canada, or from a foreign country through Canada into a 
foreign country by any continuous route owned or operated by any two 
or more companies, whether Canadian or foreign, a joint tariff for such 
continuous route shall be fully filed with the Board." — 

and urged that this section, as well as earlier sections of the Act provided that 
tariffs must be concurred in by all the parties interested. 

An initial exception to the position turns upon the wording " by any con- 
tinuous route owned or operated by any two or more companies whether Cana- 
dian or foreign." Under the interpretation section of the Railway Act, " com- 
pany," where not otherwise stated or implied, means railway company, unless 
immediately preceded by " any," " every," or " all," in which case it means every 
kind of company which the context will permit of. It seems to me that the 
words " route is owned or operated " are significant as bearing upon the kind of 
company. Subject to a situation which might possibly arise where a vessel is 
owned, chartered, used, maintained or worked by a railway company subject 
to the Board's jurisdiction (see section 336), the companies with which the 
provisions of the Section are concerned are railway companies. 

The route which is spoken of as being "owned or operated," would not, it 
seems to me, be satisfied by a movement over the discontinuous pathway of 
ocean. A route which is not owned by any company and is not operated in the 
sense of having any continuity of operation, such as it seems to me the section 
predicates, would not, of necessity, fall within the obligation of section 339 in 
respect of the filing of a joint tariff. So far as the provisions of the section are 
concerned, the ocean carrier is not, in my opinion, covered by the section. A 
joint tariff may be filed covering ocean and rail movement; but the Board's 
jurisdiction to compel such filing does not go beyond the rail portion of the 
journey. In other words, it might declare and find what was a reasonable pro- 
portion to be charged from the point where the rail journey began, on a line 
subject to the Board's jurisdiction. But the Board could not compel the ocean 
carrier to file a joint rate made up of the ocean rate, in whole or in part, and the 
proportion found reasonable for the rail journey. 

Counsel stated that section 339 provided that tariffs must be concurred in 
by all the parties interested, and he says the earlier sections had the same 
provision. 

The provisions of this section were referred to in British American Oil 
Co. vs. C.P.R., 12 Can. Ry. Cas., 327. The section at that time was 336. The 



32 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

late Chief Commissioner Mabee pointed out that while Parliament had said 
that a joint tariff should be filed, it had no means of compelling the foreign 
carrier to comply with this direction. Further, it had also been pointed out 
in British American Oil Co. vs. G.T.R., 9 Can, Ry. Cas., 178, at p. 188, that 
the Railway Act did not require a concurrence between a foreign railway 
company and a Canadian railway company. It was pointed out that such a 
concurrence was not required except as to domestic traffic falling within Sec- 
tion 333. 

It may be that there is no reference to concurrence because of the juris- 
dictional difficulty of dealing with two railway lines, one of which is outside 
the board's jurisdiction; but whatever be the reason, concurrence is not required 
by the statute as between two railway companies, and is not a condition pre- 
cedent to the filing of a joint tariff under section 339 in regard to two rail- 
ways, one of which is not subject to the board's jurisdiction. What applies 
to the railway applies with even greater force to a situation where part of the 
movement is handled by an ocean carrier. 

The argument as to the illegality of the rate fails. 

IV 

The existing rate basis was attacked from another standpoint as being 
illegal. Tariff C.R.C- No. 127 and supplements of same contains the provision, 
that "whenever a commodity rate is established it removes the application of 
the class rate on that commodity." Supplement 4 to the tariff effective January 
18. 1924 (C.R.C. No. 127), at page 7, cancels the class rates. The provision 
reads: — 

" (a) Class rates named on page seven of tariff, as amended, are 
hereby cancelled. On commodities other than those specifically mentioned 
in the tariff, the actual ocean rates to the seaboard plus the inland rates 
from port of importation will apply." 

It is contended that this is a substitution of a commodity for a class rate, 
the commodity rate being higher, and that the increasing of the rate on the 
article beyond what is provided for in the classification is not legal without the 
sanction of the board and publication in the Canada Gazette. 

As already pointed out, the practice, as admitted by the railways, has 
been that the combination of the ocean rate and the inland rail rate operates 
as a maximum. It has been emphasized that the ocean portion of the journey 
is not subject to the board's jurisdiction. The Railway Act makes no pro- 
vision for the approval of the portion of the rate concerned with the ocean 
movement nor is there any provision for the approval of the rating under classi- 
fication in respect of such movement; consequently, it is open to raise the por- 
tion chargeable to the ocean journey beyond what has hitherto existed under 
the class rate; this, however, being subject, on the admission of the railways, 
to the actual ocean rate as a maximum. 

In respect of the question of variation of classification on the inland rail 
haul, the situation is different. If an article is moving on a class rate, then the 
removal of the article from the lower to a higher class rate requires the sanction 
of the Board and publication in the Canada Gazette; but as the railways have 
admitted the practice which is now incorporated in a specific rule, namely, that 
the total rate is not to exceed the ocean rate and the inland rail rate, it follows 
that the inland rail rate is controlled by the existing classification as a maximum. 

Reference was made to the rule in the tariff reading: — 

" Whenever a commodity rate is established, it removes the applica- 
tion of the class rate on that commodity". 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 33 

Counsel submitted " that a commodity rate is a special rate which must be 
lower than the class rate and cannot be higher " (P. 5100). In Supplement No. 
4 to the tariff, effective January 18, 1924, the class rates were cancelled, and 
in Supplement No. 6 the rule above quoted was eliminated from the tariff 
because upon the cancellation of the class rates it no longer had any applica- 
tion. The tariff as it now stands, therefore, contains commodity rates only. 
With regard to tariffs generally, Counsel is correct in stating that commodity 
rates are special rates lower than the class rate. However, this tariff is on an 
entirely different footing from the classes of tariffs with respect to which the 
foregoing statement applies, because unlike the other classes of tariffs it names 
through rates made up of a combination of the ocean lines' proportion and the 
inland rail rate. In connection with the ocean proportion, the rates vary on 
different commodities which are shown in one class in the railway freight classi- 
fication, and even vary on the same commodity from different European ports 
by reason of competitive conditions. There is no classification governing ocean 
rates such as is commonly used to govern railway rates. The railway com- 
panies stated that the class rates which were arrived at by taking an arbitrary 
rate in cents per 100 pounds as representing the ocean proportion, but which had 
no definite relation to the actual ocean rate, were originally established for the 
purpose of taking care of an occasional shipment which might not be covered 
by a through commodity rate. They stated it was difficult to give the actual 
percentage of import traffic moving under the class rates, but their best judgment 
was that it would not exceed 5 per cent and was probably very much less. They 
further stated that they were prepared to establish specific commodity rates to 
cover any traffic that is moving in volume and not already provided for. In 
Supplement No. 5 to the tariff, issued since the cancellation of the class rates, 
numerous additional commodities are provided with through commodity rates. 

Inasmuch as the maximum charge under the tariff, as per rule specifically 
published therein, is the actual ocean rate plus the local class rate from port of 
discharge to destination, then what might, as a result of the wording of the rule 
re class vs. commodity rates (now cancelled) , have the appearance of a com- 
modity rate in excess of the class rate, in reality is not; consequently, the argu- 
ment of complainant on this point fails. 

At pp. 5103 to 5105, the point made by counsel is, as I understand it, that 
the railway companies had in some cases charged for the rail proportion of the 
haul an amount in excess of the local rate from port of discharge to destination. 
One example, being a shipment to Portage la Prairie, was cited. What is above 
stated as to the method of constructing the through rate based on the average 
ocean rate furnishes the explanation of this case. Occasionally the rail propor- 
tion exceeds the local rate, but more frequently, it is stated, is less. The matter 
is one of divisions of a through rate between the carriers. Even with respect 
to continuous rail movements within Canada, or on international traffic, under 
the method followed in dividing the rate between the carriers, one of them may 
receive as its division of the through rate, with respect to traffic to and from 
certain points, an amount actually in excess of its local rate between the same 
points. These are matters as between the carriers. So far as the consignee is 
concerned, his interest is with respect to the reasonableness of the through rate, 
not the division thereof as between carriers in interest, and where, as here, the 
maximum through rate is the actual ocean rate plus the inland rail rate, then 
reference to the rail proportion, without taking into account the ocean pro- 
portion, which on the shipment in question would be less than the actual ocean 
rate, is not really relevant. 



Counsel for the Liquor Commission urged that the existing through rate 
arrangement should be abandoned and that there should be substituted therefor 

25486—3 



34 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

a rail import tariff from Halifax, St. John. Portland, Me., and Montreal; the 
rate to be the local domestic rate from Montreal. The situation here, however, 
is a competitive one, i.e., import traffic to Chicago moves through the United 
States Atlantic seaports of New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and if the 
Canadian lines want to participate in this traffic they must meet the rates pub- 
lished from those pints and this is in fact what they do on the movement through 
the Canadian ports. 

While the rail component of the total charge is in accordance with what the 
Liquor Commission is asking for, the application goes beyond this and asks that 
instead of quoting through import rates from a foreign port the import rate 
should be from a Canadian port where the rail journey begins. 

In the case of ocean rates, conditions in connection with weight, bulk, pack- 
ing, etc., affect the rate. One type of liquor may have a different method of 
packing from another, and may take up more or less space. All of these factors 
are important as making a basis on which the ocean rate is charged. In general, 
the object of the ocean carrier would be to take the basis, be it weight or space, 
which gives the highest charge. 

The existing through rate arrangement is built on the basis of averaging. 
The different factors referred to are averaged and, in general, the ocean propor- 
tion is 80 per cent of the actual ocean rate. If there are exceptional conditions 
peculiar to the handling of the article concerned which bring up the charge, still 
the actual ocean rate is the maximum. 

The breaking up of the through import rate which applicant asks for would, 
under existing conditions, mean that a charge would be obtained made up of 
the domestic inland rail rate from Montreal, plus the actual ocean charge. This 
would result in an increase in rates in the majority of cases. It further appears 
that this would mean a dislocation of the existing system of through rates, and, 
as has been pointed out, the existing system is generally satisfactory in the 
West. Nothing in the way of evidence has been brought forward to justify 
giving liquors a rate treatment different froim that accorded other forms of 
merchandise, nor has it been shown that there is any undue burden of rate on 
Liquors, or that they are not in a position to readily carry the existing rate 
charges. 

Reference was made to the rate conditions existing in connection with 
import traffic in the United States. As has been pointed out, through import 
rates, made up of ocean and rail rates, do not exist through United States 
points. The situation is that the ocean rate is quoted to the port of entry 
and the rail rate beyond. 

Rates and rate practices in the United States afford no necessary criteria of 
what the rate should be in Canada, unless the conditions attaching thereto are 
on all fours with the conditions existing in Canada. 

Canadian Oil Cos. v. G.T., C.P., and C.N. Cos., 12 Can. Ry Cas., 355. 

Manitoba Dairymen's Assn. v. Dominion and Canadian Northern Express 
Cos., 14 Can. Ry. Cas., 142. 

Reference was made to there being a common rail import rate via Van- 
couver, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle. This was adduced, presumably, as an 
argument in favour of the practice which the Liquor Commission desires- to 
have made applicable in eastern Canada. There is no such allegation of similar- 
ity of conditions as between the movement eastward from the Pacific coast and 
the movement westward from the Atlantic coast as would make the practice 
in the former case the necessary criterion of what is reasonable and proper in 
the latter case. 

There being no allegation of unjust discrimination or detriment arising there- 
from, the alleged difference in practice gives no basis on which action can be 
taken under the Railway Act. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 35 

It may 'be noted in passing that Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland are all 
water terminii. Vancouver is 149 miles from Seattle; Seattle is 175 miles from 
Portland ; and with the low costs of water haulage, it can readily be understood 
how a process of equalization as between these ports has been worked out, 
the slight difference in water mileage between the ports in question not seriously 
affecting the cost of water haulage. 

But this phase of the argument leaves out of consideration the fact that 
in the through import rate from eastern Canada the process of equalization and 
absorption is carried still further. From Halifax to Montreal, the mileage is 
798 miles, while from St. John to Montreal there is a rail haul of 488 miles. 
In the case, then, of a through import rate movement via Halifax or St. John, 
there is apparent a very substantial rail haul absorption in the rate; and it 
appears that throug;h import movements to the West thereby obtain a rate basis 
lower than would be applicable if mileage were adopted as the strict criterion. 

A reference was also made at the end of the 'hearing in a somewhat casual 
way to the fact that Chicago has the same rate the year round from St. John 
and Halifax as from Quebec and Montreal. The situation here, however, is a 
competitive one. The import traffic moves from the North Atlantic seaports of 
the United States to Chicago, for example, from New York to Chicago. If the 
Canadian lines are to participate in this traffic, they must meet the New York 
rate; and this is, in fact, what they do on the movement through the Canadian 
ports. 

As has been pointed out more than once, the rail rate charged from the 
American seaboard is the actual inland rail rate; and in order to compete with 
the movement which otherwise would go via United States ports, the Canadian 
carriers have to apply the same method of rail absorption as they apply in con- 
nection with through import business moving to western points. 

As has been emphasized throughout, the Liquor Commission is only one 
party to the application. Other interests are concerned in regard to the move- 
ment of goods on through import rates; and, with the exception of the protest 
filed by the Retail Merchants' Association at Saskatoon, there is substantial 
unanimity in favour of the arrangement as now covered by tariff. 

As already pointed out, no good reason has been established in evidence 
as to why liquors should be given a different treatment as to rate basis from 
other commodities. 

I am of the opinion that the application should be dismissed. 



COMPLAINT JAMES BUCKLEY ESTATE re SWITCHING CHAEGE, CAR-FERRY TO SIDINGS 

IN PRESCOTT, ONT. 

Report of Chief Traffic Officer, January 5, 1925, issued as judgment of the Board 

The question here at issue relates to the switching charge of the Canadian 
Pacific Railway for the movement of cars containing coal from the car-ferry 
slip to public team tracks within its yards at Prescott. There is shown below 
the switching rate contained in tariff first filed with the Board and subsequent 
changes. 

First tariff filed 1904 to March 19, 1905 15 cents per gross ton. 

March 20, 1905 to October 3, 1909 15 cents per net ton. 

October 4, 1909 to December 26, 1911 20 cents per net ton. 

December 27, 1911 to October 31, 1919 15 cents per net ton (Order No. 15472, 

November 23, 1911). 
November 1, 1919 to September 14, 1923.. .. 20 cents per net ton. 
September 15, 1923 to December 25, 1923.. .. 44 cents per 100 pounds. 

December 26, 1923 to date 20 cents per net ton to private sidings; 

40 cents per net ton to team tracks. 

25486—31- 



36 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The rates in effect from 1904 to December 26, 1911, were voluntarily estab- 
lished by the railway company. Upon complaint, and after a hearing, concern- 
ing the increase in the rate from 15 to 20 cents in 1909, the Board, by its Order 
No. 15472, dated November 23, 1911, ordered the railway company to reinstate 
the rate of 15 cents per net ton, which was made effective December 27, 1911. 

In 1919 the various railway companies subject to the Board's jurisdiction 
filed tariffs providing for general increases in local switching charges. These 
tariffs wore not issued under any instruction from the Board nor as the result 
of any ruling or order of the Board, and it was the understanding that it was 
open to any person or firm affected thereby to make formal complaint to the 
Board with respect to any rates contained therein. The switching rate at Pres- 
cott was at this time again increased from 15 to 20 cents per net ton, and there is 
no record of any complaint having been made to the Board with respect thereto. 

With regard to the increase from 20 cents per net ton to 4J cents per 100 
pounds during the period September 15 to December 25, 1923, and the publica- 
tion of rates of 20 cents per net ton to private sidings and 40 cents per net ton 
to team tracks, effective December 26, 1923, the railway company's explanation 
is as follows: — 

" When tariff E-3404 was superseded by tariff E-3946, effective Sep- 
tember 15, 1923, it was intended to provide a rate of 1 cent per 100 pounds 
for private siding delivery, and 2 cents per 100 pounds for team track 
delivery, but, through some misunderstanding, the item was not inserted 
in the new tariff, with the result that, for a certain period, there was really 
no tariff rate applicable excepting the local switching rate of 4^ cents, 
which applies in the absence of other specific rate. By supplement 6 to 
tariff E-3946, effective on the 26th December, 1923, the following item 
was inserted: — 

" All freight, carloads, minimum 50,000 pounds, between Car 
Ferry and Canadian National Railways: — 

Interchange lc. 

Private sidings lc. 

Public team tracks 2c. 

" These are the same as the regular interswitching rates authorized 
by General Order No. 230, which makes the same distinction between 
private siding and team track delivery." 

It will be observed that it is only from December 26, 1923, that the com- 
pany has differentiated in this switching rate as between private sidings and 
public team tracks at Prescott; at no time prior to that date was any such dis- 
tinction made. It is stated this is the same distinction as is authorized between 
private sidings and public delivery tracks under the general interswitching order 
of the Board. I would point out, however, that the switching service here in 
question is not an interswitching service; further, in this connection the entire 
switching toll is payable by the consignee in contrast to the partial absorption 
by line-haul carrier under interswitching. The railway company itself has taken 
the position that this service at Prescott is a local switching movement, but 
here again there is some distinction between this service and ordinary local 
switching. Local switching includes the supplying and spotting of the empty 
car, which is not required in this case. 

At the sittings of the Board in Ottawa on September 16 last, the com- 
plainants not being represented, the railway company were asked if there was a 
greater expense involved in switching to the team tracks than to private sidings, 
and it appeared from their answers that the charge had not been predicated 
upon that basis but upon the ground that such a distinction was made under 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 37 

interswitching. It further appeared that there had not been any recent switch- 
ing movements to private sidings, the coal traffic all moving, apparently, to 
public team tracks. 

The railway company stated the increase from 20 to 40 cents per net ton 
was made in 1923 to line up with local switching rates at other points; for 
instance, at Montreal wharf. As to this I would submit that, obviously, the 
cost of switching varies greatly at different points and is naturally greater in the 
larger and more congested terminals; in fact, every service has its own 
characteristics, and it is only necessary to review the varied services and different 
rates therefor, as contained in the company's switching tariff, to appreciate this 
and the different provisions made by the company therefor. The point here, 
therefore, is that a switching charge imposed at one point is not the criterion 
by which to measure the charge at another point where the service is, or may be, 
performed under entirely different conditions. 

The railway company also stated, in reply to inquiry of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner, that in making this increase in rate it had not been based on any 
detailed cost of operation. The company stated it would take out data and file 
details as to the cost, as well as revenue derived from these switching operations 
at Prescott. 

This coal is received in foreign cars ex the New York Central Railroad at 
Ogdensburg, consequently the Canadian Pacific Railway has to pay per diem 
charges under the rules of the American Railway Association for the detention 
of the cars on tracks at Prescott. It was stated that a calculation covering 
the first six months of 1924 showed an average per diem expense payable by the 
Canadian Pacific Railway of $1.33 per car. The cost of a switching movement 
in wages and fuel is given as $9.88, in addition to which the company submits 
there should be considered something additional to cover the roundhouse expense, 
cost of supplies and compensation for the use of trackage and locomotive. 

During the six months ending June 30, 1924, thirty-four cars were switched 
for the Buckly Estate, at an average weight of 81,201 pounds, the revenue on 
which at 40 cents per ton was $16.24 per car. The cost given for the switching 
movement would apply for handling one car. No doubt two or more cars are 
sometimes, if not frequently, handled in one switching movement at approxi- 
mately the same cost, except for an additional $1.33 per car per diem expense, 
but at an increase of $16.24 per car in the revenue derived. A switching rate of 
30 cents per net ton would give a revenue of $12.18 per car, which would not be 
a very great margin over the cost figures submitted when but one car is moved, 
although it would give a large margin over the cost to the railway company 
where two or more cars are handled in one switching movement. 

Having considered all the circumstances, it is my opinion that the railway 
company has not justified an increase of 100 per cent in this switching charge, 
and that it should be directed to establish a switching charge of 30 cents per net 
ton in lieu thereof. 

APPLICATION MOUNT ROYAL MILLING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED, 

re RATES ON CLEANED RICE 

Report of Chief Traffic Officer, January 26, 1925, issued as judgment of 

the Board. 

This matter originated with the Mount Royal Milling and Manufacturing 
Company, Limited, Montreal, Que., who, in a communication to the Board under 
date of October 20, 1923, made reference to a special commodity blanket rate 
of 75 cents per 100 pounds applicable on cleaned rice, in carloads, from Van- 
couver to practically all points of' importance in the Prairie Provinces, Ontario 
and Quebec, and it was alleged that this rate resulted in a direct discrimination 
against Montreal. They asked that this discrimination be removed. 



38 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Answer was made by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific rail- 
ways, in which it was stated that the question of rice rates from Montreal to 
the Prairies v. rates from Vancouver had been the subject of negotiations 
between the railways and the Mount Royal Milling Company for some time 
It was admitted the current rate adjustment was such as to give the 
Vancouver millers a decided advantage in the Prairie markets. It was alleged 
the situation in regard to rice had undergone a change since the original estab- 
lishment of the 75 cent rate from the Pacific coast through to Montreal, and 
the difficulty was to arrive at an adjustment that would be fair to all interests 
concerned. It was suggested that a readjustment be made somewhat along the 
lines prescribed by the Board in the Vancouver Sugar case, Vol. 8, p. 347, of 
the Board's Printed Judgments, Orders and Rulings. The Mount Royal Milling 
Company advised that a readjustment of the rates such as suggested by the 
railway companies would not be unacceptable to them, stating they were desir- 

of obtaining equal treatment with their competitors and nothing more. 

The matter stood for a time to see if the parties could reach an agreement. 
Subsequently, the Mount Royal Milling Company advised there seemed no 
prospect of agreement and asked that the matter be set down for hearing, con- 
sequently it was listed for hearing at the sittings of the Board at Ottawa on 
May 20, 1924. In the meantime, communications were received from the 
Imperial Grain and Milling Company and Messrs. Martin and Robertson, 
Limited, Vancouver, expressing the opinion that the rates from Vancouver were 
high enough and should not be disturbed. There was also a letter dated April 
17 from Mr. E. V. Ablett, manager of the freight traffic bureau of the Associated 
Boards of Trade of British Columbia, setting out their views in the matter. 

At the Ottawa hearing on May 20, the Mount Royal Milling Company 
specifically set out their position as an application for rates on cleaned rice 
shipped from Montreal to points in western Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan 
and British Columbia, on a basis not higher than rates charged on rice shipped 
from Vancouver, B.C., to similar points in the Prairie Provinces, Ontario and 
Quebec. The principal points stressed by the Mount Royal Milling Company 
may be summarized a,s follows: — 

Rice is milled from its raw or uncleaned condition into cleaned rice at 
only two points in Canada, viz., Montreal and Vancouver. Both secure their 
major supplies in Oriental markets and they compete in the markets of Canada. 
They are also in competition with rice imported from American mills, in Texas, 
Louisiana and Arkansas. The Montreal miller contended there should be no 
arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory condition imposed upon him, as is 
alleged does result from a rate adjustment under which the mill at Vancouver 
can ship rice at a special commodity rate of 75 cents to destinations in the 
territory extending from Calgary to Montreal, whereas from Montreal the 
5th class rates apply, which makes the rate to Winnipeg $1.14, to Calgary $2, 
and to Vancouver $2.42. It was pointed out that the haul from Vancouver 
involves a greater mileage to Winnipeg than does the haul from Montreal, and 
that the costs of operation through the mountains have been placed higher than 
on the prairies; therefore, any difference in rates should be in favour of the 
shipper at Montreal and not from Vancouver. The Montreal miller asks that 
he be placed on a rate equality in the markets of the Prairie Provinces so that 
neither Vancouver nor Montreal by discriminatory rates should have any 
advantage over the other. The Montreal miller did not contend that he must 
have a 75 cent rate from Montreal westbound except in the event that that 
rate was to be continued eastbound; he stated that he w r as agreeable to any 
reasonable rate westbound provided his competitors in Vancouver paid the 
same rate eastbound for a similar service. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 39 

According to the submissions of the Montreal miller, he is at a, considerable 
disadvantage as compared with Vancouver with respect to the cost of trans- 
portation of the raw material to his mill, and this largely offsets the lower 
freight rates on cleaned rice from Montreal, a® compared with Vancouver, to 
points in Ontario. The Vancouver miller can obtain uncleaned rice by water 
all year round, whereas the Montreal miller moist bring it in before the close 
of navigation, with additional risks of marketing and cost of carrying, as well 
as insurance, interest charges and possible deterioration, or, as an alternative, 
pay the rail rate from the seaboard in addition to the water rate during the 
winter months. 

It is apparent from the record that there are numerous qualities and grades 
of rice originating at different points and that a computation based on the 
handling of one particular grade of rice might produce an entirely different 
result with respect to another grade, all of which has its effect on the ability to 
market in certain consuming territory. On this point Mr. Ross, representing 
the Mount Royal Milling Company, stated, at p. 3699: — 

M There are some grades on which we can compete in Calgary, and 
there are other grades of rice on which they (Vancouver) can compete 
with us in Ottawa." 

The rate adjustment suggested by the railway companies was to revise the 
rates from Vancouver to Winnipeg and points west thereof to the basis of the 
class rates, with the combination available at Winnipeg as maximum; that is 
to say, the rate from Vancouver to United States boundary points, such as 
Northgate, Neche and Noyes, is 90 cents, minimum 40,000 pounds, and 83 cents, 
minimum 60,000 pounds, the rate from Noyes to Winnipeg being 26 cents, 
making a combination through rate of $1.09, minimum 60,000 pounds, and $1.16, 
minimum 40,000 pounds. To Canadian destinations in Eastern Canada the 
combinations available via Chicago were suggested as a basis. The present 
rate and suggested figures to some of the more important points are later shown 
herein. With regard to the rates from Montreal, the railways suggested estab- 
lishment to Winnipeg of the same rate as suggested from Vancouver, viz., $1.09, 
minimum 60,000 pounds, and to points west of Winnipeg they proposed the same 
reduction from the class rates applicable thereto as proposed at Winnipeg, viz., 
5 cents per 100 pounds. 

The Vancouver firms already referred to herein applied to the Board for a 
hearing in Vancouver on the matter of revision of the rates on cleaned rice 
before the Board rendered a decision on the application of the Mount Royal 
Milling Company, and the application of the last-named company was there- 
fore listed for the sittings of the Board in Vancouver on June 23, in order to 
afford the Vancouver millers whose interests might be affected an opportunity 
of presenting their views. Copies of the brief filed by the Mount Royal Milling 
Company at the Ottawa hearing had been furnished the Vancouver firms and 
the Vancouver Board of Trade. Briefly, the Vancouver millers took the posi- 
tion that with regard to the 75 cent rate eastbound, inasmuch as they were 
members of the Vancouver Board of Trade, w r ho had applied for and urged 
equalization of rates, they could not consistently justify objection to the Mount 
Royal people being granted the same rate westbound as they enjoyed east- 
bound, and they were therefore agreeable to the same blanket rate adjustment 
west as east. On the question of increasing the rate from Vancouver, the Van- 
couver millers contended that the application of the Montreal miller was merely 
for an equalization of rate based on the present eastbound rate, which they 
conceded, but had not come prepared to argue the question of an increase in 
the Vancouver rate. It w 7 ould not seem that such construction of the Mount 
Royal Milling Company's application was warranted, because the question of 



40 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

a revision of the Vancouver rate was referred to in their brief, and it was cer- 
tainly referred to in the official report of the hearing at Ottawa, the railways 
having outlined therein the revised rates they were suggesting, and Mr. Mason, 
at p. 4575. referred to having looked over the evidence of the hearing at Ottawa. 
They frankly stated they were not very much concerned about the competition 
of the Montreal miller because it was largely the American millers that they 
were afraid of and who created their severest competition. They stated that 
when they had negotiated with the railways and obtained the special rate of 
75 cents eastbound it was as against the American 'competition, which they 
met all through the prairies and in Ontario. At p. 4576 Mr. Gavin stated: — 

" We did not have the competition of the Mount Royal very much 
in view. In my opinion, we had the competition of the American mills. 
That is the chief factor. We are quite willing to take our chances with 
the Mount Royal mill but the serious point with us is the American com- 
petition." 

Again, at p. 4577, there appears the following question of the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner and reply made by Mr. Gavin: — 

" Q. Your position, then, is this, that the key of the situation is the 
competition of the American mills? 

" A. That is, from our point of view, that is the serious matter with 
us; we are not so much concerned with the others; we think they are 
quite entitled to the same treatment as we are. It is the American mills 
we are afraid of." 

The railways admitted that the 75 cent rate from Vancouver was estab- 
lished to enable the Vancouver mills to get into the eastern markets in competi- 
tion with rice from the Southern States, but claimed that the situation had since 
changed. Their position was that the 75 cent rate was put in to meet a special 
commercial market competition, as existing in 1922; consequently, it being by 
common admission a competitive rate and made for a specific purpose, and the 
conditions having since changed, it was open to the railways to withdraw or 
increase the rate. The representatives of the railways suggested that the inter- 
ested parties, i.e., the Montreal and Vancouver millers and the railway com- 
panies, should have a conference and see if some settlement satisfactory to all 
parties could be reached. The following remarks of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner at the end of the hearing at this time shows how it was left: — 

" A reference has been made to the question of having a conference. 
The shippers' representatives are (here, and the railway company's repre- 
sentatives are here, and the Board never objects to conferences taking 
place between the parties interested. So there appears to be an oppor- 
tunity for conferring. We are not expressing any opinion as to what 
the line of conference should be. That is a question for the parties 
themselves." 

On August 20 the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways wrote 
a joint letter to the Board, reading as follows: — 

" This question was discussed before the Board at hearings in Van- 
couver, B.C,., on June 23, at which time it was arranged for the railways 
and the Rice interests to get together with the view of seeing if it would 
not be possible to agree on a satisfactory basis on which to dispose of 
the matter. 

As advised the Assistant Chief Commissioner, Dr. McLean, we were 
not successful in arriving at a satisfactory basis of settlement at the con- 
ference in Vancouver, and as stated at that time, the next move would 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 41 

be to publish what was* considered a fair basis. Publication of the revised 
basis has been somewhat delayed due to further efforts to reach a satis- 
factory settlement but this does not seem possible. 

The railways will, therefore, now proceed to publish revised rates 
from Vancouver on basis of the combination rates as outlined in the 
evidence before the Board in Ottawa on May 20' last. No commodity 
rates will be published westbound from Montreal to the prairies as it 
does not seem possible for the railways to meet the views of the Mount 
Royal Milling Company as' to what rates from Montreal should be in 
view of the increased rates which are being published from Vancouver. 

Supplements to tariffs providing for the revised rates from Vancouver 
are now being prepared in Winnipeg and will be filed with the Board 
in due course at which time copies will also be furnished to the Rice 
milling interests in both Vancouver and Montreal." 

Tariff schedules giving effect to the foregoing were filed to become effective 
on October 1. The present rate and the proposed figures to some of the more 
important and typical points from Vancouver, are shown below. 

Present Suggested 

Rate Rate 

To (In cents per 100 lbs.) 

Calgary, A'lta 75 98 

Edmonton, Alta 75 98 

Regina, Sask 75 109 

Saskatoon, Sask 75 109 

Brandon, Man 75 109 

Winnipeg, Man 75 109 

Windsor, Ont 75 108 

London, Ont 75 109i 

Hamilton, Ont 75 110 

Toronto. Ont ^ 75 112 

East of Toronto to, and including, Montreal,, Que.. 75 115^ 

Thereafter, and prior to the effective date of the proposed tariff schedules, com- 
plaints were received by the Board in regard thereto. The Winnipeg Board of 
Trade requested an opportunity of being heard before any change in rate was 
allowed. The Mount Royal Milling Company, in a letter dated September 9, 
stated: — 

" The proposed adjustment is discriminatory and unjust, and not at 
all satisfactory to us." 

The Vancouver milling firms claimed the proposed rates would divert business 
to American mills and applied for suspension of the increased rates until they 
had been given opportunity to submit their case to the Board. 

The Edmonton Board of Trade stated they " would like to be informed of 
any reasons that led the Board to approve the tariffs recently filed with them ". 

It would appear the Edmonton Board of Trade overlooked the fact that the 
only freight tariffs that require to be, or are, specifically approved by the Board, 
are standard freight tariffs of maximum tolls. Special rates lower than the 
standard rates may, under the provisions of the Railway Act, be varied on 
notice, there being a requirement that in the case of increases in such rates 
there shall be given 30 days' notice. The provisions herein briefly referred to 
are covered by sections 330 and 331 of the Railway Act. 

The Vancouver Board of Trade endorsed the request of the Vancouver rice 
millers for suspension. Mr. A. Chard, freight and traffic supervisor, Depart- 
ment of Railways, Province of Alberta, applied for suspension and an oppor- 
tunity of a hearing. Mr. A. E. Burns, Secretary, Prairie Provinces Wholesale 
Grocers' Association, Winnipeg, submitted a petition signed by a number of 
wholesale grocers and wholesale grocery brokers of Winnipeg; protesting against 



42 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

any increase in the rate from Vancouver to Winnipeg, and asking that it be 
disallowed. By Order No. 35608, dated October 1, 1924, and amending Order 
No. 35645. dated October 9, the Board suspended the proposed changes in rates 
on rice as contained in the various tariff schedules therein enumerated pending 
hearing, and the matter was listed to be heard at the sittings of the Board in 
Edmonton on October 29 ; Vancouver November 5, and Winnipeg on Novem- 
ber 20. 

So many features were referred to in the various submissions and at these 
different hearings that it would be difficult to comment on all of them. It may 
be stated, however, that the various briefs and official notes of evidence have 
all born gone over and carefully considered. 

At the sittings in Edmonton on October 29, Mr. Chard objected to any 
increase in the rate from Vancouver to Alberta points, and his submission was, 
in part at any rate, on behalf of the consumers of Alberta. The present rate 
to Edmonton is 75 cents per 100 pounds, or f cents per pound, and the proposal 
of the railways was to increase it 2 %ooth of 1 cent per pound, or to 98 cents 
per 100 pounds. The total burden of rate under this proposal would be 98 Aoo> 
or slightly less than 1 cent per pound. Mr. Chard argued that the result of an 
increase of less than \ cent per pound would very likely increase the price to 
the consumer to the extent of 2\ cents per pound; or in other words, the increase 
in the price of a pound of rice to the consumer, according to Mr. Chard's 
submission, would be more than ten times the amount of the increase in the 
freight rate, and 2J times the total burden of the freight rate. This is a very 
interesting, as well as startling, statement, and it is unfortunate that Mr. Chard 
did not develop it sufficiently to show clearly why such an incomprehensible 
result would follow. The Board has had reason to believe, from data in its 
posses-ion, that the benefit of reductions in freight rates is not, at times, passed 
on to the consumers, but it is indeed surprising to have it asserted that such a 
slight increase in freight rate reacts to the detriment of the consumer to the 
extent alleged by Mr. Chard. Mr. Chard also stated, at p. 7312, that he had 
no objection to the railways raising the rate east of Alberta, and at p. 7319 
stated: "I have no quarrel with the $1.09 rate to Winnipeg". The proposed 
increase was greater to Winnipeg than to Edmonton, and obviously Mr. Chard 
was not holding a brief for the consumers east of Alberta. 

Mr. Chard stated that so far as the 75 cent rate from Vancouver to 
Montreal w r as concerned, he considered it was too low and an unfair rate to the 
rest of the country. He considered a special commodity rate was warranted 
from Vancouver as far east as Winnipeg and the head of lakes, in order to meet 
foreign competition from the United States. He pointed out, however, that the 
rate adjustment proposed by the railway companies under the suspended schedule 
provided to destination points in Saskatchewan and Manitoba rates appreciably 
below the normal 5th class rate, the reductions ranging from 29 to 63 cents, 
whereas, he alleged, only two Alberta points obtained any reduction, viz., Leth- 
bridge, 3 cents, and Medicine Hat, 7 cents. He contended this was unfair to 
Alberta. If rates unaffected by competitive market conditions were under con- 
sideration, Mr. Chard's argument would be very pertinent. However, Mr. Chard 
having admitted that to Winnipeg a competitive rate to meet United States 
competition is justified, obviously the rate fixed to Winnipeg has to be set at the 
figure which is felt necessary to meet the case and enable the Vancouver miller 
to do business there. The rate to Winnipeg being thus fixed, it then applies as 
maximum to intermediate points west until it meets the normal class rate. 
Obviously, the greatest competition is at Winnipeg from Southern United States, 
and it is to this point that the lowest rate is necessary. This competition, from 
a rate standpoint, rapidly decreases west of Winnipeg, consequently except for 
applying the Winnipeg rate as maximum there is not a comparable competitive 
situation necessitating the establishment of less than normal rates to many 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 43 

destinations west of Winnipeg. This is made apparent by the comparative 
statement of rates from Vancouver, Montreal and New Orleans later shown 
herein. There is no evidence of any rice moving from the United States into 
Edmonton, and in fact the total importations of United States rice into Alberta 
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, was 200,000 pounds. Alberta cannot, 
therefore, properly demand less than normal rates when the same market com- 
oetition does not exist, and would require to make out a case for reduced rates 
by the submission of evidence of the unreasonableness per se of the rates charged 
from Vancouver to Alberta destinations. No such evidence was submitted. 
Under these circumstances, Mr. Chard's exhibit No. 2, showing rates computed 
to Alberta destinations based on the same percentage reduction from the class 
rates as exist in the case of the special competitive rate to Winnipeg, is of the 
same effect as a comparison between a normal rate and a competitive rate. 
Alberta would only be entitled to the same percentage reduction on a showing 
that the conditions were the same as existing at Winnipeg. This point is later 
dealt with herein in connection with the Vancouver Millers' comparisons of 
rates. 

Mr. Chard also argued that under the proposed rates the railway company 
would likely obtain loading of 24,000 pounds per car as against 60,000 pounds 
under the present rate, " with the result that 2-J cars will be wheeled over the 
same mileage with a total earnings of $615 as against $450 earnings for one 
movement of 60.000 pounds minimum" (p. 7307). The force of this statement 
would largely depend upon the empty car movement eastbound from Vancouver. 
The Canadian Pacific Railway submitted a statement to the Board at Van- 
couver showing that during the year 1923, 5,950 empty cars were handled east- 
bound from the British Columbia district. Similar figures were not filed by the 
Canadian National Railways. The matter was not sufficiently developed on the 
record to enable any conclusion to be formed on this point. 

At the Vancouver hearing the Vancouver millers amplified in considerable 
detail their previous submissions. They again claimed that the proposed rates 
on rice eastbound would divert the rice business of the Middle West or Prairie 
Provinces from Canadian to Southern United States millers, and be of no advan- 
tage or assistance to the Montreal millers. They contended that the 75 cent 
rate on rice eastbound is a profitable one to the railways, in support of which 
they quoted rates applying eastbound on beans, tapioca, sago and woodpulp. 
Their illustrations draw attention to the very low rates that have been estab- 
lished by the railway companies, not only on the commodities named, but on 
numerous others, important to the province of British Columbia, moving east- 
bound in large volume and which enable that province to get into its far distant 
Eastern Canadian markets under very low rates. All these rates are influenced 
or controlled by various competitive conditions, such as to meet rail competition, 
water competition, and to enable shippers to meet market competition; conse- 
quently, such special rates very much below the normal basis cannot properly 
be taken as a yardstick by which to measure the reasonableness, or profitable- 
ness to the railway companies, of rates per se. If they could, then all the numer- 
ous higher normal rates in effect on commodities similarly classified could be 
immediately condemned. The comparison made, if sound as an argument as to 
the rate being profitable to the railway companies, would be a strong argument 
for the shipper of sago and tapioca in support of a reduction in the rates on 
those commodities from $1.10 to the 75 cent rate in effect on rice. So far as 
the beans are concerned, there is no competition between beans and rice, and the 
former shipped in bags or barrels classify 8th class in the Canadian Freight 
Classification, while rice is 5th class. It might as logically be argued that because 
the rice rate is the same to Calgary as it is to Montreal the Calgary rate is 
entirely unreasonable, in that it involves as high a rate for a haul of 642 miles 



44 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



as is charged for a haul of 2,882 miles, but the Vancouver interests are not 
complaining of the rate to Calgary. The Railway Act contains specific provisions 
authorizing a reduced charge on traffic handled to meet competitive conditions 
without necessitating corresponding reduction in normal rates, and it has been 
held in numerous decisions of the Board that comparison as between competitive 
rates and normal rates is no evidence of the unreasonableness of normal rates 
per se. It being a well-established principal, therefore, that a railway may 
publish a reduced toll on competitive movements which is lower than charged 
for the carriage for lesser distances along the same line to intermediate points, 
then obviously a comparison between two competitive rates which are different, 
because influenced by different conditions, does not, in itself, provide any real 
evidence of the reasonableness per se of either of the competitive rates in 
question. Before it could be successfully proven that the rice rate was profitable 
merely by making comparison with the rates on these other commodities it would 
first be necessary to produce evidence in proof of the assumption or allegation 
that the rates on these other commodities were in themselves profitable. This 
was not done. 

The Vancouver millers further supported this contention by quoting rates 
oA'er American railways for carrying rice of 90 cents from San Francisco to 
Xew York, and 83 cents from Portland and Seattle to Chicago. They argued 
that the American railways undoubtedly find it profitable to keep these rates 
in effect, but no evidence was submitted showing whether or not these rates are 
also controlled by competitive conditions, and the evidence put in relating to 
these rates was not sufficiently developed to enable any weight being given 
thereto. As regards comparisons between United States and Canadian rates, 
the Board has stated : H Tolls fixed in the United States are not the criteria of 
reasonable tolls in Canada ". (Manitoba Dairymen's Association v. Dominion 
Express Company, 14 C.R.C. 142; Rilev v. Dominion Express Company. 7 
C.R.C. 112.) 

Mr. Mason referred to the figures covering importations of rice into the 
province of Quebec for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923, as follows: — 



Country from which imported 


Rice 

uncleaned, 

unhulled or 

Paddy 


Rice, 
cleaned 


United Kingdom 


(pounds) 


(pounds) 
233,778 






40,000 


British India 


1,567,720 


1,201,588 




61,365 




100,000 






604 


Germany 




5,000 


Italy 




32,681 




81,422 




Netherlands 


166,000 






20,600 


United States 


436,750 


2,738,278 










2,185,892 


4,499,894 



TOTAL— White and Brown, 6,685,786 lbs.— 3,343 tons. 

He stated: " You will note that the province of Quebec imported altogether 
in both milled and brown, or unmilled, rice, from all countries, during 1923, 
3.343 tons; from the United States only 218 tons of brown, or unmilled, and 
1.369 tons of white, or milled, rice, or a total of 1 } 587 tons, almost one-half of 
the total imports were American rice, and out of this amount more than two- 
thirds was milled by American millers." The statement that " almost one-half 
of the imports were American rice and out of this amount more than two-thirds 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 45 

was milled by American millers " might easily be misunderstood. The total 
importation of cleaned rice was 2,249 "tons, that from the United States being 
1 ; 369 tons, or 60 per cent. But this does not mean that 60 per cent of the cleaned 
rice consumed in the province of Quebec during the period referred to was milled 
by American millers. A certain percentage of the 1,092 tons of uncleaned rice 
imported into the province was milled and consumed there, in addition to which 
the foregoing figures do not indicate how much of the 15,342 tons of uncleaned 
rice imported into the province of British Columbia in the same year was in turn 
shipped in its cleaned condition by the Vancouver millers into the province of 
Quebec. The Vancouver millers asserted they did a large volume of business 
in the East, but failed to submit any tonnage figures to the Board on this very 
important point. About the only reference is to be found on p. 8057, where, in 
reply to Mr. Lanigan, Mr. Mason stated the Eastern market consumes about 
two-thirds of their product. Mr. Mason's references to the Ontario figures also 
left out of consideration, when stressing the percentage of United States importa- 
tions/the same factors as above referred to. 
At p. 8058 Mr. Mason stated: — 

" The Mount Royal Milling Company evidently feel that Ontario is 
a territory which should really belong to them, and in their evidence they 
claim that in the Toronto market they have been prevented from doing 
business at a profit for a considerable time owing to competition from 
Southern and British Columbia millers; the latter by reason of the 75 
cent rate were able to undersell them. The statistics furnished in their 
own table entirely disprove this and show conclusively that the competi- 
tion from which they suffer is from Southern mills rather than from 
British Columbia." 

The statements filed by Mr. Mason show British Columbia importations of 
uncleaned rice to be as follows: — 

Fiscal year ending March 31, 1923 30,684,929 lbs. 

Fiscal year ending March 31, 1924 31,530,666 lbs. 

At p. 8061 Mr. Mason stated that there is a loss in offal of over 20 per cent, 
and at p. 8075 he advised that about two-thirds of their product moves to the 
eastern market. It is not developed whether this means east of the Prairie 
Provinces or includes all of the territory east of British Columbia. Deducting 
from the importations as above given 20 per cent for offal, and taking two- 
thirds of the balance as representing shipments east into the Prairie Provinces, 
Ontario, and Quebec, it would give as the approximate volume of rice shipped 
east by the Vancouver millers, 16,000,000 pounds in 1923, and 16,800,000 pounds 
in 1924. The importations of cleaned rice from the United States into Quebec, 
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta during these years were: — 

1923 10,404,655 libs!. 

1924 7,482,392 lbs. 

The foregoing figures do not appear to bear out Mr. Mason's statement that 
" the statistics furnished . . . show conclusively that the competition from 
which they (Mount Royal Milling Company) suffer is from southern mills rather 
than from British Columbia ". 

Taking the territory of the whole of Canada, Quebec and west, for the fiscal 
year ending March 31, 1924, the importations of uncleaned rice amounted to 
56,294,783 pounds; deducting 20 per cent for offal gives 45,035,827 pounds. The 
importations of cleaned rice amounted to 16,190,674 pounds, or a total of 
61,226,501 pounds, and in comparison with the latter figure it is noted the 
importations of cleaned rice from the United States amounted to 7,611,271 
pounds, or approximately 11 per cent of the total. The importations of cleaned 
rice from the United States for this period represented a decrease of 27 per cent 
from the importations from the United States for the corresponding period of 
1923. 



46 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

In rebuttal of the allegation of the Vancouver millers that the real competi- 
tion of the Montreal miller was the American miller rather than British Columbia ; 
the following exhibits were filed by Mr. Ross. The figures contained in these 
exhibits are to be found in the exhibits filed in different form by Mr. Mason at 
the November hearing in Vancouver. 

TOTAL IMPORTS OF UXCLEANED AND CLEANED RICE INTO CANADA FOR 

FISCAL YEARS 1923 AND 1924. COMPARED WITH IMPORTS INTO 

BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR SAME PERIOD 

Uncleaned Cleaned 

1923 32,874,729 lbs. 22,110,838 lbs. 

1924 56,299,605 lbs. 16,523,234 lbs. 



89,174,334 lbs. 38,634,072 lbs. 



Total imports 127,808,406 lbs., 

or say 63,904 tons 



IMPORTS INTO BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR SAME PERIOD 

1923 30,684.929 lbs. 8,647.682 lbs. 

1924 31,530,666 lbs. 7,493,368 lbs. 



62,2:15,595 lbs. 16,141,050 lbs. 



Total B.C. imports 78,356.645 lbs., 

or say 39,178 tons 



SUMMARY 

Total tonnage for Canada 63,904 tons 

Tonnage for British Columbia alone 39,178 tons 



Total tonnage for all rest of Canada 24.726 tons 



So that British Columbia milled and imported rice to the extent of more than one and 
one-half times the importations of the whole of the rest of Canada. 



IMPORTATIONS OF UNCLEANED AND CLEANED RICE INTO BRITISH 

COLUMBIA AS COMPARED WITH THE COMBINED IMPORTATIONS 

OF THE TWO PROVINCES OF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC, FOR 

FISCAL YEARS 1923 AND 1924 

British Columbia 

Uncleaned Cleaned 

1923 30,684,929 lbs. 8,647,682 lbs. 

1924 31,530,666 lbs. 7,493,368 lbs. 

62,215,595 lbs. 16,141,050 lbs. 

or 31,108 tons 8,070 tons 

Ontario and Quebec, Combined 
1923: 

Ontario 468 lbs. 6,045,367 lbs. 

Quebec 2,185,892 lbs. 4,499,894 lbs. 

1924: 

Ontario 1.079 lbs. 4,850.614 lbs. 

Quebec 24,763,038 lbs. 1,290,184 lbs. 

20,950,477 lbs. 16,686,059 lbs. 

or 13,475 tons 8,343 tons 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 47 

SUMMARY 

So that British Columbia milled over two and one quarter times as much raw or 
uncleaned rice as Quebec, and imported nearly as much cleaned rice as the combined cleaned 
rice importations of Ontario and Quebec. 

The Associated Boards of Trade of British Columbia did not make any 
oral submissions at the Vancouver hearing, but in their written submission 
already alluded to herein the following appears: — 

" We beg to state that the Vancouver rate of 75 cents is in no way a 
discriminating rate, in fact, the discrimination is the other way. One 
only has to refer to Mr. Ross' chart to prove this point. Mr. Ross com- 
pares class rates having minima of 12 tons with a commodity rate having 
minima of 30 tons. We would point out that Vancouver snippers, when 
shipping in 12-ton lots, have to pay the following rates: — 

Regina $1.41 

Brandon 1.58 

Winnipeg 1.71 

Ft. William 1.85" 

A similar comparison was made by the Imperial Grain and Milling Company 
as between the rates from Montreal, based on 24,000 pounds minimum, and the 
rates from Vancouver, based on 30,000 pounds minimum. The rates quoted from 
Montreal are those charged regardless of whether 24,000 or 60,000 pounds are 
shipped, while the higher rates from Vancouver, above quoted, would only apply 
when a shipment weighing less than 26,316 pounds was made, because the com- 
modity rate of 75 cents, minimum 60.000 pounds, would be cheaper on any 
shipment weighing over this amount. Further, the above rates from Vancou- 
ver, according to the record, are simply paper rates, as Mr. Mason, in his written 
submission of December 30, says, with regard to the 60,000 pounds minimum and 
75-cent rate: " This is the load and rate we are paying"; and the whole 
evidence warrants the assumption that the rice is not moving eastbound from 
Vancouver to the Prairies or east thereof at any higher rate. Under these cir- 
cumstances, the above submission is of no real value as supporting the allega- 
tion that no discrimination exists as against Montreal. 

At the Winnipeg hearing on November 20, very little that was new was 
added to the record. Mr. Hamilton, appearing for the Board of Trade and the 
wholesale grocers of Winnipeg, stated at the outset that they objected to any 
increase or change in the present rate, although later he modified this position, 
stating, at p. 8375: — 

" I have just one observation to make, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stephen, 
in the figures he has quoted to you, shows a difference in the price of 
rice over two periods. The rate was 90 cents to Winnipeg when the change 
was made; they now want to return to conditions at that time, and put 
in a rate of $1.09. 

From' my knowledge of the desires of the Winnipeg jobbers, perhaps 
they are not insisting upon a 75-cent rate, but they do want a rate that 
will give Vancouver rice a preference in this territory." 

No evidence was submitted as to the reasonableness per se of the proposed rate. 
Mr. Bathgate, whose company represents the Imperial Grain and Milling Com- 
pany of Vancouver at Winnipeg, referred to the severe competition of the 
Southern United States millers, but his statements were of a general character, 
and in reply to a question of the Chief Commissioner he stated he was unable to 
furnish any figures showing how much American rice was being brought in. 
The Prairie Provinces Wholesale Grocers' Association, who had written to the 
Board as already mentioned herein, made no appearance or representations at 
the Winnipeg hearing. 



48 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



Reverting to the Vancouver hearing of November 5: Mr. Mason also 
dwelt at some length with the position of the Montreal miller as he saw it, 
alleging that they were at a disadvantage in location and operated under certain 
handicaps, to which he referred. In a letter under date of December 10 the 
Mount Royal Milling Company advised they had received copies of the evidence 
taken at Edmonton, Vancouver and Winnipeg, and requested that they be given 
an opportunity to appear before the Board to further present their case and 
correct misrepresentations of fact that w T ere made at the hearings referred to. 
The matter was therefore set down to be spoken to at the sittings of the Board 
at Ottawa on December 16. The Mount Royal Milling Company stated that the 
analysis of their affairs and the deductions made therefrom by Mr. Mason at 
the Vancouver hearing contained many inaccuracies which they desired to con- 
tradict and correct. They read a statement into the record on this phase of 
the matter, copy of which was furnished to the Vancouver interests, and on 
December 23 the Imperial Grain and Milling Company telegraphed the Board 
stating some of the figures in this statement were incorrect, and were advised in 
reply that they could file a further statement covering correction of alleged 
erroneous figures, it being understood that this would not cover the filing of new 
evidence. Their statement, dated December 30, is on file, together with a letter 
from the Mount Royal Milling Company, dated January 6, acknowledging and 
correcting a typographical error in one portion of their statement. 

There was also submitted to the Board, under date of January 2, by Mr. 
Lanigan, with request that it be added to the record (copy being sent to the 
Mount Royal Milling Company and the Vancouver millers) , a copy of an appli- 
cation received by the American railways operating north from Minneapolis to 
Winnipeg, from the millers of American-grown rice in Texas for reductions in 
rates north of Minneapolis, alleging that they are unable to compete with millers 
located in Canada. In this application it is pointed out that the rate from 
Texas points to Minneapolis is 73 cents and from Minneapolis to Winnipeg 57 
cents, the combination making through rate of $1.30. They stated they have 
been unable to compete with their competitors located in Canada due to the 
freight rates they are compelled to pay, and contend it is necessary to have a 
commodity rate from Minneapolis to Winnipeg of not more than 36 cents. 
They further stated : " This territory is in equal distance as that from Montreal, 
and with the heavy duty assessed on shipments into Canada, you can readily 
see and understand the necessity of a reduction in our proportional rate from 
Minneapolis." 

The following tabulation sets out the present rate situation from the three 
competing districts to typical Canadian destinations: — 







From 




To 


Vancouver 


Montreal 


New Orleans 




Miles 


Rate 


Miles 


Rate 


Miles 


Rate 








2,882 

2,240 

2,265 

1,773 

1,897 

1,550 

1,417 

998 

555 

445 

334 


2-42 

2-00 

2-00 

1-55 

1-68 

1-32 

1-14 

•79 

37| 

36^ 

32 






Calgary, Alta 


642 
766 
1,109 
1,088 
1,332 
1,465 
1,885 
2,916 
2,803 
2,698 
2,882 


75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 


2,594 
2,786 
2-091 
2,263 
1,931 
1,797 
2,214 
1,189 
1,302 
1,416 
1,757 


1-52 




1-76 




1-69 i 


Saskatoon, Sask 


1-82| 


Brandon, Man 


l-40£ 




l-22£ 


Ft. William, Ont 


1-33J 


Windsor, Ont 


56| 


London, Ont 


56^ 


Toronto, Ont 


63 




70| 











REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 49 

In explanation of the rates to Calgary and Edmonton, which appear to be out 
of line with other western points, it may be stated that to these destinations 
the rate is based on the combination of rates available through Coutts, Mont., 
while to the other Western Canadian destinations the lowest available rates 
are made up on the sum o fthe rates to and from Minneapolis. 

On two important points adduced in the evidence there is no difficulty in 
forming a conclusion. First, it is admitted by both the railway companies and 
the Vancouver millers, in whose interest the rate was established, that the special 
commodity blanket rate of 75 cents was put in to enable the Vancouver millers 
to get into the Eastern markets in competition with rice from the Southern 
States. Second, the railway companies admit that the present rate adjustment 
gives the Vancouver miller a decided rate advantage over Montreal in the 
Prairie markets. In other words, the contention of the Montreal miller that 
the current rate situation to Prairie Province points is unjustly discriminatory 
against Montreal is admitted by the railways. 

With regard to the changed conditions warranting a readjustment of the 
eastbound rate from Vancouver, it is stated that exceptional conditions existed 
at the time the present rate was established in April, 1922, viz., there was a 
tremendous overproduction in the United States, resulting in rice being dumped 
into Canada at low prices. 

The statement is on the record that the delivered price of the American 
rice at Toronto was, at that time, around 5 cents per pound, whereas on June 
21 last it was 7.8 cents per pound, with very little moving from the United 
States. At the Winnipeg hearing the situation was described by the railway 
companies as follows: In the months of October, November and December, 
1921, the Vancouver miller was asking $90 per ton f.o.b. Vancouver; then, as a 
result of United States competition, the price was forced down to $80 per ton, 
resulting in the railways giving relief by establishing a 75-cent rate. The present- 
price at Vancouver is $91 per ton, and it was claimed that the commercial con- 
ditions which obtained in the spring of 1922 have disappeared. The Mount 
Royal Milling Company stated: — 

"In order to draw the Board's attention from the real object in 
view — the dumping of certain Oriental rices in Eastern Canada, favoured 
by a discriminating freight rate — the western millers have stated that 
the low rate was necessary to allow them to compete in Winnipeg with 
the United States mills. 

The so-called southern rices come from New Orleans and California, 
and are of three different types — Blue Rose, Carolina and California 
Japan. To compete with these rices in Winnipeg, the western mills are 
offering Japan, mostly grown in California and a smaller lot grown in 
Japan, and Patna. rices imported in the brown from Calcutta. 

May we point out to your Board that the Mount Royal Milling 
Company have for over forty years imported Patna rice in the brown 
from Calcutta via the St. Lawrence gateway, shipping rates from Calcutta 
to Vancouver and Calcutta to Montreal being approximately the same, 
and until these discriminatory rates came into effect we were large sellers 
in the Winnipeg market; that we at the present time sell Japan rice in 
Montreal at. lower prices than those prevailing in Vancouver, and that 
given an equal rate into Winnipeg we could put Patna and Japan types 
in at as good or better prices than our competitors. 

A great deal has been made by Mr. Mason and Mr. Gavin, repre- 
senting Vancouver millers, of the importation of cleaned southern rices 
into eastern Canada in 1923. In that year there was a tremendous over- 
production, the result being that it was dumped into Canada at ridicul- 
ously low prices. Under normal conditions, and on an average, American 

25486—4 



50 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

rices will always be on a higher priced basis than competing Japan and 
Oriental rices, as the American miller has his home market protected by 
a duty of $2 per 100 pounds, on all foreign milled rice entering the 
States. In any case, under normal conditions, we, as millers of brown 
rice purchased from New Orleans;, can compete, certainly in eastern 

Canada, with the products of American mills shipped into Canada," 
The Mount Royal Milling Company do not contend that they require a 75 cent 
rate to Winnipeg to enable them to compete successfully with the United 
State? miller. They complained that the readjustment proposed by the railway 
companies, viz., rates to Winnipeg of $1.09 from Vancouver and $1.14 from 
Montreal, was still discriminatory against Montreal, and when Mr. Lanigan 
advised (p. 9870) he was prepared to establish a rate of $1.09 from Montreal 
they stated (p. 9871) that they were quite agreeable to that. The application 
of the Texas millers for a reduction in the current rate into Winnipeg has been 
alluded to. The Vancouver millers, on the other hand, are not agreeable to an 
increase in their present rate, the continuance of which they contend is neces- 
sary to enable them to meet the United States competition. Mr. Mason (at 
p. 4578) and Mr. Gavin (at p. 4590) admitted there was a change in the con- 
ditions, as urged by the railway companies', but maintained that this was only 
a temporary condition due to a short cirop in the Southern States last season, 
resulting in the price remaining up. The importations of cleaned rice from 
the United States are decreasing. The figures for the fiscal year ending March 
31, covering the territory Quebec and west thereof in Canada, are: — 

1^22 13,812,544 lbs. 

1923 10,431,710 lbs. 

1924 7,611,271 lbs. 

While exhibits were filed showing importations of United States cleaned rice 
into the Prairie Provinces, absolutely no evidence was furnished from any 
source showing what tonnage of cleaned rice the respective Canadian milling 
interests at Montreal and Vancouver ship into the Prairie Provinces. The 
same remarks apply to Eastern Canada. Manifestly, such data are very 
important and of much greater value than general statements, especially when 
the expressed views of opposing interests do not agree. For example, there is 
nothing on the record indicating how the rice consumption on the Prairies is 
divided as between the various opposing; interests, or what percentage of the 
total the United States importations amount to. At p. 9850 Mr. Reford, of 
the Mount Royal Milling Company, stated: — 

"The rate of freight from New Orleans to Toronto and London is 
lower 1 than from New Orleans to Montreal, so that we have more diffi- 
culty in competing there, but the average lower price of our importations 
of Patna and Japan is having its effect and with these we are gradually 
regaining the market of central and western Ontario, lost to us during 
the abnormal conditions of 1923." 

His statement that a rate of $1.09 to Winnipeg would be satisfactory if also 
applicable from Vancouver, has already been referred to. Upon reference to 
the tabulation of rates already shown herein it will be noted that to Windsor, 
Ont., the rate situation is: — 

Cents 

From New Orleans 56-r 

From Montreal 37^ 

Difference 19 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 51 

Under the proposed rates the situation at Winnipeg would be, — 

Cents 

From New Orleans 122^ 

From Montreal 109 

Difference 13? 

So far as the rates are concerned, it seems logical, therefore, to conclude that if 
the competition can be met at Windsor with a rate difference of 19 cents there 
should be no great difficulty in also meeting it at Winnipeg with a rate difference 
of 13 j cents, the difference being practically one-twentieth of one cent per 
pound, and if Montreal can meet this competition it is not clear why the Van- 
couver miller could not, especially in view of their contention, as put in evidence 
and already referred to, that Vancouver was more favourably located than 
Montreal, and that the Montreal miller was by reason of geographical location 
severely handicapped in a number of ways, quite aside froim the length of rail 
haul on the outward product. 

So far as relates to the ability of these various milling interests to compete 
in common markets, the position taken by the Mount Royal Milling Company 
is that they 'are not complaining of their United States competition. The Van- 
couver millers state they are not afraid of Montreal but their competition is 
with the United States. With regard to the Eastern Canadian market, the 
tabulation of rates shows the advantage that New Orleans has in the matter 
of length of rail haul. The Vancouver millers further took the position that 
the important matter for them was not the eastern Canadian market but that 
on the prairies. The Vancouver millers stated that regardless of any rate 
adjustment to Eastern Canada they could still get into that market by a water 
rate through the Panama canal and rail rate from the Atlantic port at practic- 
allv as favourable a basis as their present 75 cent rate. Mr. Mason, at 
pp.' 8082-83, stated:— 

"Mr. Mason: I would like to say this Mr. Chairman, in connec- 
tion with the matter of the Canadian trade. I have not stressed that 
matter at all. As far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned, we can get 
into Ontario and Quebec and compete with the Mount Royal Milling 
Company, regardless of what rate the railways may make because we 
can ship by water. 

Commissioner Oliver: Through the canal? 

Mr. Mason: Yes, through the canal. 

Mr. Lanigan: If you do not mind my interrupting you. Supposing 
you ship by water, you might get into Montreal during six months of the 
year, after that you would have to ship to New York, Halifax or St. 
John and pay the freight from there. 

Mr. Mason: No, we would store, at different points. When navi- 
gation is closed to Montreal, we can ship to New York anyway and get 
into Toronto, Hamilton and London, all those points at practically the 
same rates as we can get from you to-day. We would rather ship it by 
rail. It is a much cleaner and nicer way of doing it. 

Commissioner Oliver: Do I understand you to say that you can 
ship bv water to New York, and rail New York to Toronto at 75 cents? 
—A. Practically that." 

With respect to the Winnipeg market, the railway companies pointed out 
the rate from New Orleans is $1.22-J, plus duty of 75 cents per 100 pounds, or a 
total of $1.97-2-, whereas there is no duty on the uncleaned rice imported into 
Canada, and their position was that if, as admitted, the Montreal miller can 

25486— 4i 



52 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

pay a freight rate of $1.09 into Winnipeg, obviously, so far as any question of 
rate is concerned, the miller at Vancouver does not require a 75 cent rate to 
moot the competition of either the New Orleans or Montreal miller. 

Eliminating entirely the question of duty, and taking simply the situation 
as it relates to freight rates, the tabulation of rates shows the advantage is 
decidedly with Vancouver. If it has difficulty in competing, manifestly factors 
other than freight rates enter into the matter. Careful consideration of the 
whole record warrants the conclusion that there are factors aside from freight 
rates that effect the marketing of rice, such as the grades, quality, price, and 
preference in some quarters for certain kinds of rice. There is the statement 
of Mr. Ross, already quoted, that with some grades they can compete with 
Vancouver as far west as Alberta, while in others Vancouver competes in Mont- 
real. No doubt there will always be, under such conditions, importations of 
United States rice in some volume. 

Reference was also made to costs with respect to the importation of the 
raw product. With regard to the matter of advantages or disadvantages of 
location or production costs, in so far as this involves the proposition that a 
producer's cost disadvantage should be equalized in the freight rate, it may be 
stated that this transcends the powers or functions of the Board. In a number 
of applications which have been before the Board there has been apparent the 
idea that the needs of a shipper in carrying on his business on a profitable basis 
should afford a criterion of the reasonableness of rates, and it has been held in 
numerous decisions of the Board that while the burden is on the railway of 
maintaining reasonable rates the needs of the producer do not afford a final 
measure of what a reasonable rate should be. 

u The Board has no power to regulate tolls for purpose of equal- 
izing cost of production or geographical, climatic or economic condi- 
tions." 

Imperial, etc., Co. v. C.P.R., 14 C.R.C. 375; Hudson Bay Mining 
Co. v. G.N.R. Co., 16 C.R.C. 254; Canadian China Clay Co. v. 
G.T.R. Co., 18 C.R.C. 347; Western Retail Lumbermen's Assn. 
v. C.P.R., et al, 20 C.R.C. 155; Dominion Millers' Assn. v. Can. 
Frt. Assn., 21 C.R.C. 83. 

" It is not part of the obligations of the railway under the Railway 
Act to equalize costs of production through lowered rates so that all may 
compete on an even keel in the same market." 

Canadian Portland Cement Co. v. G.T. and Bay of Quinte Ry. Cos., 
9 C.R.C. 211. 

With regard to rates to meet competition, market, rail or water, or to 
develop traffic, the railway companies have a discretion and may voluntarily 
establish rates lower than could be justly directed or compelled by the Board. 

" The Board has indicated that in the matter of rates, for example, 
its function is concerned with complaints as to unreasonableness or as to 
unjust discrimination, and that it is not empowered to put in rates simply 
to develop traffic; that is to say, the Board is not empowered by Parlia- 
ment to act as an arbiter of industrial policy. If it were so empowered, 
there would need to be explicit words; and if such a power were con- 
ferred, the Board would then be able to pass upon the question whether 
an industry should be allowed to develop in one section or another. No 
such power has been conferred. The railway, subject to the inhibitions 
as to unjust discrimination, may give a reduced rate basis to develop 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 53 

traffic. It takes the responsibility of the profit or loss in connection with 
the transaction. The Board, under the Railway Act, has no profit or 
loss responsibility, and its intervention in the matter of rates must, as 
has been indicated, be concerned with matters falling within the broad 
categories of reasonableness and unjust discrimination, and not with a 
policy of developing industries through rate adjustments." 

Application of District Board of Trade, Coalhurst, Alta,, for station 
facilities. Board's Judgments, Orders and Rulings, Vol. XIII, 
p. 260. 

" So far as water competition is concerned, it has been recognized 
over and over again in various decisions of this Board that the extent 
to which water competition shall be met is in the discretion of the rail- 
way. The Board has also held that it is not the privilege of the shipper 
to demand less than normal rates because of such competition, unless the 
railway, in its own interest, chooses to meet it. This principle of water 
competition has also been recognized practically by all rate-regulating 
commissions. (Canadian Oil Cos. vs. G.T., C.P. and C.N.R. Cos., 12 
C.R.C., 351; and Blind River Board of Trade Case, 15 C.R.C., 146). 

" The Board has also held that it is in the discretion of the railway 
whether it shall or shall not make rates to meet the competition of 
markets. The same principle applies here as in the case of water com- 
petition. (Montreal Produce Merchants' Association vs. G.T.R. and 
C.P.R. Cos., 9 C.R.C., 232; and B.C. Sugar Refining Co. vs. C.P.R., 
10 C.R.C., 171.)" 

. Complaint of Zwicker & Company, Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S. 
Board's Printed Judgments, Orders and Rulings, Vol. XII, p. 152. 

It has also been held by the Board on numerous occasions that not 
only is it in the discretion of the railway whether it shall or shall not make 
rates to meet water or market competition, but it has also been recognized that 
when such competition has been lessened or removed it follows that the railway 
may bring its rates up more closely to its normal basis. 

" It is in the discretion of the railway to what, if any, extent it 
shall recognize this competition; and if competition forces the rates of 
the railway below its normal basis, it follows that when the competition 
is less effective the railway may bring its rates up more closely to its 
normal basis." 

Dominion Millers' Assn. v. G.T. and C.P. Ry. Cos., 12 C.R.C., at 
p. 368. 

" If a low rate basis continuing over some period of time were the 
outcome of an especially effective water competition, it would not 
necessarily follow that, when this water competition was removed, the 
placing of a rail rate on a higher basis would mean that the railway 
would have to bear the onus of disproof." 

Dominion Sugar Co. v. Canadian Freight Association. 14 C.R.C., 
at p. 192. 

The same principle is upheld in Blind River Board of Trade v. Grand 
Trunk Railway, et al, in 15 C.R.C., and at p. 156 it is stated: — 

" This in no way limits the right of the railway to take out this 
rate when the water competition becomes less effective, or when the 
railway thinks it has become less effective, or even when the railway no 
longer desires to meet it." 



54 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Other similar decisions of the Board that might be referred to are as 
follows: — 

Canadian Lumbermen's Assn. and Montreal Board of Trade v. Grand 
Trunk, Canadian Pacific, and Canadian Northern Railway Cos., 17 
C.R.C., at p. 102. 

Nanaimo Board of Trade v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 20 C.R.C., 
p. 224. 

" The railway formerly met this competition but now it had decided 
not to make rates to meet it. The rates complained of here are not 
unreasonable in themselves for the service performed. The only point 
in issue is whether the fact of the railway having met water competition 
at an earlier period puts the burden upon it to meet water competition, 
now. The Board has held that it is the privilege of the railway in its 
own interest to meet water competition. It is not, however, the privilege 
of the shipper to demand less than normal rates because of such compe- 
tition, which the railway does not in its own interest choose to meet." 
Bowlby v. Halifax and Southwestern Railway, 20 C.R.C., at p. 234. 

Reference may also be made to the complaints of Martin and Robertson, 
Limited, and the Imperial Rice Milling Company, at Vancouver, against the 
increased carload rates on rice from Vancouver to Eastern Canada, which went 
into effect in August, 1917. Previous to the war, the Eastern Canadian refineries 
got their rice by all water to Montreal, mostly from India. After the outbreak 
of the war these refineries commenced purchasing their supplies from Siam, 
Japan, etc., via the Pacific coast and this movement resulted in the establish- 
ment of a special import rate on raw or uncleaned rice from Pacific coast ports 
to Montreal of 60 cents per 100 pounds, effective in January, 1916. This was 
a competitive rate. Subsequently, the rate was extended to apply on cleaned 
rice and increased to 65 cents, and later, owing to the competition having become 
less effective and the railway companies desiring to return to their original rates, 
they published tariffs establishing a 75-cent rate. The Board was asked by the 
complainants to re-establish the 65-cent rate. The Board stated: "It is quite 
clear that the lower rate was made effective to meet water competition. That 
competition having lessened, the railway companies are quite justified in taking 
out their competitive rates. The Board has decided on many occasions that a 
railway company is not obliged to meet water competition, and that a railway 
company is free to take out low competitive rates, provided there is no undue 
discrimination, and that the rates made effective are reasonable in themselves. 
The rates in question should not be interfered with and this application should 
be dismissed." (Board's Printed Orders, Judgments and Rulings, Vol. VIII, 
p. 387.) 

Aa far as relates to the reference made on two or three occasions to re-ad- 
justment of the rice rates from Vancouver and Montreal along the lines of the 
sugar case (Vol. VIII, Board's Printed Orders and Judgments, p. 347) it may 
be pointed out that the situation here being dealt with is not parallel to that 
case. There was not then in question, as here, the question of rates so much 
below the normal basis, or the factor of competition from the United States; 
nor were the rates from Vancouver to Eastern Canada involved in the sugar 
case. 

With regard to the proposed rates from Vancouver, as contained in the 
tariff schedules suspended by the Board's Orders, the rate to Winnipeg is 
very much below the normal basis and shown as applying as maxima to points 
west, and the rates to Eastern Canada are very much low r e,r still, proportion- 
ately, than the normal rates. There is nothing adduced in evidence that 
would warrant the Board in finding that the proposed rates from Vancouver 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 55 

were unjust or unreasonable, or contrary to any provision of the Railway Act. 
Following the principles enunciated by the Board in numerous decisions, 
extracts from a number of which and references to others have already been 
quoted, and on the evidence adduced, I consider the railways have justified 
their position in proposing an advance in the rates from Vancouver. 

Mr. Lanigan stated at the Ottawa sittings on December 16, p. 8970: — 

" I do not think it would be a good thing, either for Montreal or for 
Vancouver or for the railways, to make a rate into Winnipeg that would 
result in the business coming up from New Orleans, and the Canadian 
carriers getting 66 miles from the border as their share of the haul" 

From the foregoing and other remarks made by Mr. Lanigan, I interpret 
his position as being that it is the view of the railway companies that any rate 
established from Vancouver to Winnipeg should enable the Vancouver millers 
to market their product there in competition with other sources of supply; but 
that if it did not the railways would reconsider the matter. From the fluctua- 
tions in these rates in the past, and the position taken by the railway com- 
panies, I consider the assumption warranted that it is the intention of the 
railway companies, as far as possible, to adjust their rates from Vancouver 
so as to enable the millers at that point to do business on the prairies and at 
Winnipeg. The incentive and self interest of the railways to bring this situa- 
tion about is apparent, as with regard to rice from New Orleans they would 
only obtain a short haul from the international boundar} 7 to Winnipeg of some 
66 miles. 

Recognizing that it is in the discretion of the railway companies to make 
rates to meet market competition, and to change rates as conditions change, 
and also having particularly in view, both as to conditions as they now exist 
and as they existed in the past, the complete absence of any evidence on the 
record as to data covering the consumption of rice in the Prairie Provinces 
and how the traffic is divided between the various interests herein referred to, 
I do not consider the Board could if proper to do so, determine from the 
record what would be the correct rates to prescribe from the standpoint of 
rates directed with a view to meeting market competition. I consider this is 
particularly a case falling within the remarks made by the late Chief Com- 
missioner, the Hon. A. G. Blair, in the case of The United Factories, Limited, 
v. Grand Trunk Railway Company, 3 C.R.C., p. 424, where he stated: — 

" . . . . the railways, when properly influenced by unobjectionable 
motives, should be better able to judge than this Board can be, as to what 
course will tend to best promote the common interest of carrier and 

shipper Unless we can consider the rate objected to unjust or 

unreasonable, or contrary to some provision of the Railway Act, we are 
not authorized, at law, to disallow it; and we are not able to say in this 
instance that we do consider the rate unjust or unreasonable, and we know 
of no provision of the Act which it contravenes." 

With regard to Montreal, the admission of the railway companies that the 
current rate adjustment is discriminatory, has already been dealt with. 
My conclusions and recommendations, therefore are: — 

1. That the Orders of the Board Nos. 35608 and 35645 should be rescinded, 
which leaves it open to the railway companies to reinstate the rates from Van- 
couver covered by the tariff schedules therein referred to, or a readjustment to 
some other basis, if they consider proper. Any rates published to be subject 
at any time, of course, to attack on the ground of their being unreasonable or 
unjustly discriminatory, or violate some provision of the Railway Act. 



56 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

2. That with regard to the rates on rice from Montreal the following 
direction to the railway companies issue: — 

(a) That to "Winnipeg the rate from Montreal shall not exceed that con- 
temporaneously in effect from Vancouver. 

[b) That to points west of Winnipeg the rates from Montreal shall not 
exceed the percentage of the 5th class rate from Montreal, equivalent 
to the ratio of any commodity rate established from Montreal to Winni- 
peg below the 5th class rate. 



STONE DUST 

Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, dated March 11, 1925, concurred in by 
the Assistant Chief Commissioner. 

After the hearing of this application at Montreal it was suggested and 
agreed that the parties should meet and discuss the differences involved with 
a view to a possible agreement, and the disposition of the case was suspended 
for that purpose. The parties met, as agreed, but arrived at no agreement, 
and the Traffic Department of the Board was requested to report upon all traffic 
features involved in the complaint. The report of the Assistant Chief Traffic 
Officer, dated January 5 last, and hereto attached, deals fully with all that is in 
controversy and disposes of the questions involved, in a manner satisfactory to 
the Board. As the report is in detail, I would adopt and issue it as the judgment 
of the Board, and issue order in terms of its conclusions. 

By way of explanation it is to be noted that the station of Ste. Gregoire, 
which is mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the end of Mr. Brown's report, 
is on the line to Doucet's Landing; St. Nicholas, which is referred to in the final 
paragraph of the report, is the next station to Chaudiere, a distance of three 
miles therefrom (see C.N.R. time-table No. 26), and St. George, also mentioned 
in the last paragraph of Mr. Brown's report, is in the group of stations St. 
George to Nicolet, shewn in the same time-table, as the next station to Ste. 
Rosalie. 

Order to go as above. 

Report of Assistant Chief Traffic Officer 

This complaint was first made against the increase of £ a cent per 100 
pounds in the rates on cement from Montreal to Upton, St. Liboire and Britannia 
Mills, P.Q., effective July 19, 1924, in Supplement 28 to Grand Trunk Railway 
tariff C.R.C. No. 4441. The complaint was afterwards enlarged to include an 
application for a general readjustment of rates on cement from Montreal to 
stations on the Canadian National lines in Quebec south of the St. Lawrence 
river to the same basis as was published to Canadian National stations north 
of the St. Lawrence river for equivalent mileage. 

At the hearing of the case in Montreal it was suggested that the parties get 
together and endeavour to arrange a settlement. At the conference between the 
parties the railway company offered to reduce rates, Charney to Ste. Julie, 
inclusive, from 16^ cents to 15J cents per 100 pounds; Plessisville to Victoria- 
ville, and Walker's Cut to Ste. Eulalie, from 16-^- cents to 14^ cents per 100 
pounds; Upton to St. Hyacinthe, from 10J cents to 10 cents per 100 pounds; 
also to absorb the entire amount of the Harbour Commissioners' switching 
amounting to $5 per car, in place of the present absorption of $3. 

Mr. Hamilton refused to accept this adjustment unless the rate to St. 
Hyacinthe and Ste. Rosalie Junction were reduced to 9^- cents; and to Ste. Made- 
leine, St. Hilaire and Beloeil to 8 cents per 100 pounds. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 57 

If the traffic and operating conditions were the same on movements from 
Montreal to stations .south of the St. Lawrence as to stations north thereof, 
there would be considerable merit in the cement company's application for the 
same rate basis for equivalent mileage on each line. In the movement of cement 
to points south of the river, however, it is necessary to use the tracks of the 
Harbour Commissioners, for which a charge of $5 per car is made, and in making 
a comparison, the net earnings of the railway should be considered. 

The company has proposed a rate of 10 cents to St. Hyacinthe, 36 miles, 
and to Ste. Rosalie Junction, 39 miles. On the basis of the minimum carload 
weight for cement of 60,000 pounds, the net earnings of the company would be 
$55 (60,000 pounds at 10 cents per 100 pounds, less $5), or 9.17 cents per 100 
pounds, as compared with net earnings of $57 per car to Joliet, 37 miles, and 
Crabtree, 32 miles, north of the river. 

To Ste. Madelaine, 29 miles, the rate is 94 cents per 100 pounds, and net 
earnings would be $52, or 8.67 per 100 pounds, as compared with Salomee, 30 
miles, $57, on a rate of 9J cents per 100 pounds. 

To St. Hilaire, 23 miles, and Belccil, 22 miles, the net earnings would be, 
at the rate of 9 cents per 100 pounds, $49, or 8.17 cents per 100 pounds, as 
against an earning of $48 at rate of 8 cents per 100 pounds published to 
L'Epiphanie, 24 miles, and L'Assomption, 21 miles. It will therefore be seen 
that the net earnings of the company is actually less to three of the points on 
which there was a disagreement and but 0.17 cents higher to the other two, as 
compared with movements for equivalent distance on Canadian National lines 

north of the St. Lawrence river. 

» 

The company's offer to absorb the entire Harbour Commissioners' charge in 
addition to the adjustment of the rates intermediate to Quebec is, in my opinion, 
a liberal one, and I therefore recommend that the offer of the rates as contained 
in letter of Mr. R. W. Long to Alistair Fraser, dated December 19, 1924, be 
accepted as a proper adjustment of rates on cement from Montreal to Grand 
Trunk Railway points, except that the LH-cent rate should also be published to 
stations north of Aston Junction to St. Gregoire. 

No action appears to have been taken in connection with rates to Inter- 
colonial Railway points between Ste. Rosalie Junction and Chaudiere, including 
the Nicolet branch, but as this line is adjacent to the Grand Trunk and a part 
of the Canadian National Railways a similar basis of rates should be applied. 

I therefore further recommend that the railway company be required to make 
adjustment in rates on cement from Montreal, — 

To stations Aston Junction to St. Nicholas, inclusive, 15^ cents; St. 
George to Nicolet, 15J cents; St. Leonard, 14^ cents per 100 pounds; 
and that to points between Ste. Rosalie Junction and St. Leonard the 
rates be reasonably scaled. 
Respectfully submitted. 

COMPLAINT OF PAPER MANUFACTURERS OF WINNIPEG f<? MIXED CARLOADS OF PAPER 
FROM PORT ARTHUR TO THE EAST 

Judgment of the Assistant Chief Commissioner, dated March 10, 1925, concurred 
in by Mr. Commissioner Boyce. Commissioner Oliver dissenting 

This matter was heard at Winnipeg. The case was brought on on short 
notice and adequate opportunity of following the rules of the Board in regard 
to answer and reply was, therefore, not available. It is possible that if there 
had been such opportunity for filing of answer and reply the issue might have 
been clarified, The result was that the matter was developed in a somewhat 
confused and unorganized manner. 



58 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

In another case, at an earlier date — Lindsley Bros. Canadian Co. vs. Great 
Northern By. Co., Board's file 2622.1 — where the issues had been somewhat 
complicated, the Board sent to the parties, as an interim judgment, the Report 
of the Board's Chief Traffic Officer, there being allowed an opportunity to file 
exceptions thereto, which were to be considered before final action was taken. 
Both parties wrote in saying they had no exceptions to make and thereafter 
order issued. 

In the present instance a similar procedure has been followed. Copy of the 
interim Report of the Board's Chief Traffic Officer went to the applicant and he 
was asked to file such exceptions, if any, thereto as he might have; and was 
further informed that when such exceptions, if any, were received final action 
would be taken. 

The matter was allowed to stand for a considerable period of time for filing 
of exceptions. None have been received, nor has any further communication 
come forward to the Board. The matter is now in shape to deal with. 

Mr. Martin, who appeared as the Western representative of the paper mill 
at. Port Arthur, appeared for the complainants. The Port Arthur mill manu- 
factures different kinds of paper, and Mr. Martin stated it was their desire to 
ship these various commodities in one car, because the cheaper grades are gener- 
ally shipped in large quantities and the better grades in smaller quantities. 
Complaint was made that this method of shipping may be followed with respect 
to shipments from Port Arthur to the East but not to the West. Shipments' to 
Toronto jobbers were referred to, who, it was stated, are in competition with 
complainants in the West. The same arrangement when shipping west from, 
Port Arthur as available when shipping east from Port Arthur is asked for. 

The various kinds of paper referred to are rated fifth class, in carloads, in 
the Canadian Freight Classification and are under the same distinctive heading 
therein; consequently, from Port Arthur to the West or from Port Arthur to the 
east they might be shipped at fifth class rate in mixed carloads. From Port 
Arthur to Toronto, the following special carload commodity rates are in effect: — 

Cents 
per 100 
lbs. 
Paper, printing, other than newsprint, including surface-coated and 

super-calendered 63 

Paper, newsprint, in bundles or rolls ) 

Paper, unfinished, for coating, in rolls j 

Paper, wrapping, plain, not coated, oiled or waxed (will not apply on \ 55^ 

parchment or tissue wrapping paper) 

Wrappers, mill 

Paper, wall, blank, unfinished in rolls 50 

These rates are contained in Canadian National Railways' tariff C.R.C. 
No. E-467, and in Canadi&n Pacific Railway's tariff C.R.C. No. E-3968. These 
tariffs name rates on lists of paper commodities from the various manufacturing 
points in Ontario and Quebec to stations in Eastern Canada. Port Arthur was 
not a shipping station under this tariff until recently. These tariffs from the 
eastern mills contain a rule providing that with respect to mixed carloads of 
articles taking different rates the respective carload rates will be applied, sub- 
ject to a minimum carload weight of 40,000 pounds, which means, of course that 
in connection with a mixed carload of newsprint paper and printing paper other 
than newsprint from Port Arthur to Toronto, the newsprint paper would be rated 
at 55-2- cents and the other printing paper at 63 cents per 100 pounds. 

While Mr. Martin also mentioned manilla envelopes, these are not really in 
question, because the mixed carload arrangement applicable eastbound from 
Port Arthur does not apply on manilla envelopes, that commodity not being in 
the special paper tariffs. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 59 

From Port Arthur to Winnpieg, there is a special commodity rate on news- 
print paper in carloads of 42 cents per 100 pounds, contained in Canadian Pacific 
tariff C.R.C. No. W-2655 and Canadian National tariff C.R.C. No. W-289. 
On the other description of paper referred to, the fifth class rate applies of 57 
cents per 100 pounds. While, therefore, mixed, carloads of the two kinds of 
paper may be shipped at the rate of 57 cents, there is no provision from Port 
Arthur west for the application of the respective carload ratings when these two 
classes of paper are shipped in a mixed carload. 

The arrangement as to mixed carloads at respective carload rates is one 
confined to stations in Eastern Canada, and Eastern Canadian mills cannot ship 
to Western Canadian points at respective carload rates; so that there is no ques- 
tion involved of an Eastern mill having an arrangement with respect to ship- 
ments in mixed carloads to Western Canadian points which is denied to the mill 
at Port Arthur shipping to the same territory. For example, from Toronto to 
Winnipeg a mixed carload of the character referred to would pay a rate of $1.14 
per 100 pounds, as compared with 57 cents per 100 pounds from Port Arthur to 
Winnipeg. 

The representative of the railway companies stated that finding that the 
arrangement as to mixed carloads at respective carload rates was in effect locally 
between points in Eastern Canada, they extended to the mill at Port Arthur 
the same privilege when shipping into this Eastern territory where they would 
have to compete with this mixing, arrangement; but so far as shipments west- 
bound were concerned, in as much as there was no arrangement under which the 
mills in the East could ship to Winnipeg at the respective carload rates, they did 
not therefore establish that arrangement westbound from Port Arthur. In other 
words, the situation was quite different in the two terriories. 

The action of the railway companies in giving the mill at Port Arthur the 
same privilege eastbound as other mills in Eastern territory with which it had 
to compete indicates a desire to remove any discrimination that might have been 
alleged. The complainant now points to this arrangement as the measure of 
what should govern from Port Arthur westbound, although the granting of com- 
plainant's contention would be to put Port Arthur westbound in a different situ- 
ation from any other mill shipping westbound, as to-day they are all paying the 
fifth class rate on a. mixed carload, whereas the granting of this application from 
Port Arthur would put it on a lower basis, and of course their rates are already 
much lower than from any eastern mill on account of their shorter distance. 
Mr. Martin did not develop very clearly wherein, so far as the rate situation 
was concerned, Port Arthur is at any disadvantage in shipping to Winnipeg. 
He stated at p. 5168 that Port Arthur could ship to Toronto and back to Win- 
nipeg in competition with him. If this be so, then it is quite evident that there 
are elements quite aside from the question of freight rates that enter into the 
matter, because the rate on the printing paper from Port Arthur to Toronto is 
G3 cents and the rate back again from Toronto to Winnipeg is $1.14, whereas 
the rate from Port Arthur to Winnipeg is 57 cents. That the question of rates 
is not the whole factor to be considered is further indicated by the discussion at 
p. 5173 reading as follows: — 

" Mr. Martin: If one man is in the interior and another man has 
his goods in Toronto, the difference in rates on one car great or small 
does not enter into the mind of the publisher at all. 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Can the commodities you 
are producing be laid down in Winnipeg from Toronto, if that is the point 
of distribution, in competition with you on a lower freight rate? 

"Mr. Martin: No sir. The larger publications are taken from this 
part of the country and printed in Toronto on the same stock we supply 
and mailed from Toronto to the western country. 



60 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: So far as you are con- 
cerned, your competitor at Toronto cannot lay goods down here at lower 
rates than you can from Port Arthur? 

"Mr. Martin: No sir. But the business is taken to Toronto and 
shipped out to the western country after they pay freight on their mate- 
rials, to the detriment of the publishing business in this country. 

" Mr. Stephen: Suppose a man brought his goods in by motor truck 
and warehoused them, and got an order from Winnipeg and made up a 
mixed car, what would he pay from Toronto here? 

"Mr. Martin: The regular rate. 
"Mr. Stephen: $1.14? 
" Mr. Martin: Exactly. 

" Mr. Stephen: You can mix from the Head of the Lakes to Win- 
nipeg? 

" Mr. Martin: Yes, by raising the rates. 
"Mr. Stephen: By paying the 57 cents?" 

To cancel the arrangement from Port Arthur eastbound would, on the sub- 
mission made by Mr. Martin, remove the grounds for his complaint; but it would 
not help the situation, because Toronto, which is the point he referred to in 
evidence, could still purchase from other paper manufacturers at much shorter 
distance points. 

An important feature of this matter, however, is that, with respect to the 
evidence given at Winnipeg by Mr. Martin there was absolutely nothing 
adduced to show how the rate situation complained of actually reacts to the 
detriment of the complainants, In substance, there was simply the submission 
as to the difference in treatment from Port Arthur eastbound as compared with 
westbound. The origin of this has already been explained herein, viz., there 
was extended to Port Arthur in shipping into eastern territory the same tariff 
arrangement that was in effect in the east long before the Port Arthur mill 
commenced operation. There were no data furnished by complainants showing 
that the existence of the rate situation complained of had resulted in taking 
away any business from them that they formerly enjoyed; there was nothing 
submitted showing what business goes to the Toronto jobber as a result of the 
rate situation complained of that the Winnipeg jobber feels belongs to that 
market; there was nothing submitted showing what proportion of this business 
the complainants might reasonably expect to share under a rate adjustment; 
nor was there anything showing what reduction in rate would be necessary to 
make a change in the situation. 

The Board has ruled that one criterion of unjust discrimination is whether 
the district alleged to be discriminated in favour of has profited at the expense 
of the locality against which it is alleged the discrimination has taken place. 

Wegenast vs. G.T.R. Co., 8 Can. Ry. Cas., 42, at p. 45. 

Toronto and Brampton vs. G.T.R. and C.P.R. Cos., 11 Can. Ry. Cas,, 370, 
at p. 375. 

Massiah vs. C.P.R. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas., 358. 

The Board has also held that in dealing with discrimination it should take 
into consideration whether there is actual competition in the same markets 
between the companies concerned, and in respect of the products! concerned; 
and where there was no such competition it has held that difference in rate did 
not constitute an unjust discrimination or undue preference. 

Michigan Sugar Co. vs. C.W. & L.E. Ry. Co v 11 Can. Ry. Cas., 353, at 
pp. 362-363. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 61 

Where no evidence was submitted of any rate advantage possessed by any 
competitor which rendered it more difficult for the applicant to do business, 
the allegation of unjust discrimination was held to be unfounded. 
Ontario Paper Co. vs. G.T.R. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas., 177. 
Plunkett & Savage vs. Express Traffic Assn., 28 Can. Ry. Cas., 402, at 

p. 407. 
Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills vs. C.P.R., 28 Can. Ry. Cas., 100, at 
p. 109. 

On the record before the Board, action asked for by the applicant is not 

justified. 

Commissioner Oliver: 

John Martin of the John Martin Paper Company, Winnipeg, appeared in 
support of the application. 

This application consisted of a complaint of discrimination in shipment of 
mixed carloads of paper, as between eastern paper mills and the mill at Port 
Arthur, Ont. Mixed cars could be shipped in any direction from eastern mills, 
but not to points farther west than Fort William, each class of paper in the 
car paying its share of the gross carload cost, according to the rate of its class. 
The same privilege was permitted on eastbound shipments from the Port Arthur 
mill, but not on shipments to Winnipeg and other points westward. 

Mr. Martin, on behalf of the wholesale paper trade of Winnipeg, asked 
that the same privilege as to mixed cars now allowed on shipments from Port 
Arthur eastward, should be allowed from Port Arthur westward. 

No reason was given by the railways for the discrimination between ship- 
ments eastbound and westbound from the Port Arthur mill, than that eastern 
mills were allowed the mixed car privilege only as far west as Fort William, 
therefore the mill at Port Arthur should not be allowed the privilege west of 
that point; and that the arrangement which fixed Fort William as the westerly 
limit of mixed car shipment from eastern mills had been made before the Port 
Arthur mill was built. 

I beg respectfully to submit that the building of the Port Arthur mill at 
the westerly limit of mixed car shipment from eastern mills created a changed 
condition; and that the regulations covering shipments of mixed cars from that 
mill should have been adapted to the new condition and placed on the same 
basis as those applied to eastern mills. 

The western limit of mixed car shipment for eastern mills was fixed with 
regard to shipments originating a thousand miles away. I submit that it is not 
reasonable to apply the same limit to a mill operating within five miles of it, 
or to retain that limit in regard to such mill, after the western customers of the 
mill have formally complained to the Board, as Mr. Martin did. 

For'the reasons given, I am unable to concur in the Judgment of the Assist- 
ant Chief Commissioner in this matter. 

Re NORTHWEST GRADE SEPARATION, TORONTO — APPLICATION OF ELLEN BOLAND 

Judgment of the Chief Commissioner, dated April 7, 1925, concurred in by the 

Assistant Chief Commissioner 

This case was heard in Toronto on the 19th day of March, 1925. 

After a hearing held in Toronto in May, 1924, this Board made an order 
which, inter alia, and as far as concerns the case now before us, directed the 
Canadian National Railway Company to construct a subway under the tracks 
of its Newmarket Subdivision, on Bloor street, in the city of Toronto, and to 
file plans showing such subway for the approval of the Chief Engineer of the 
Board, within thirty days from the date of the order, which was issued on the 
5th day of June, 1924, and in accordance with such order, plans of the subway 
were approved by the Chief Engineer of the Board and filed on different dates. 



62 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

On the 16th of October, 1924, the defendant company proceeded to expro- 
priate two parcels of the complainant's lands adjoining the subway, by filing 
in the Registry office of the city of Toronto on the date last mentioned, a plan 
and description of the lands proposed to be taken. In this, the railway com- 
pany acted not by order of this Board, nor under the provisions of the Railway 
Act. but by authority of the Act incorporating the Canadian National Railway 
Company and the Expropriation Act. The necessity for such expropriation arose 
from the fact that the access of frontagers to that part of Bloor street affected 
by the subway is unavoidably interfered with in the construction of this work. 
Consequently, in order to provide reasonable and proper entrance to the street, 
the Canadian National Railway Company proceeded as above to expropriate two 
pieces of land owned by the complainant on the south side of Bloor street and 
fronting thereon. The first piece of land so expropriated, being a strip 30 feet 
in width and 242 feet in depth, running southerly from Bloor street, was taken 
in fee simple for the purpose of giving to the Loblaw Groceterias company access 
to Bloor street upon the subway. In the other piece of land so expropriated, 
the railway company assumed to take " a limited right or easement to enter 
upon and take possession of such land only for the construction of such slopes 
as may be necessary to conform with the grade on Bloor street as altered ". 
This latter piece of land is a wedge shaped strip fronting on Bloor street, running 
westerly from the westerly side line of the other expropriated parcel. of land, 
a distance of 78 feet 10 inches, and having a depth of seven feet at the easterly 
end, and of two feet at its westerly end. 

The right of the railway company to take this step was sharply challenged 
by Ellen Boland, owner of the property so taken, and under advice of counsel 
she has raised an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario, asking that the expro- 
priation by the railway company be set aside as illegal and unauthorized. 
Upon that question the Board has no opinion to express. 

The action so commenced in the Supreme. Court of the Province came to 
trial lately before Mr. Justice Orde. During the hearing, the railway company 
offered in evidence as part of its case, the plan filed for the purpose of expropria- 
tion, which, it seems, had not then secured the approval of the Chief Engineer 
of the Railway Board. It was objected to on that account, but the learned 
judge permitted the plan so tendered to be submitted to the Chief Engineer 
for approval, and upon being approved by him it was admitted in evidence. 

The application to this Board is for the purpose of cancelling such approval, 
which it is claimed would invalidate the plan and render the expropriation pro- 
ceedings nugatory. It was strongly urged that the plaintiff in the suit (the 
complainant herein) was prejudiced by the approval of the Chief Engineer being 
given subsequent to the commencement of her action, and after all other 
evidence in the case had been submitted, for she claims that the approval of the 
plan is a condition precedent to the action of the railway company in taking 
the land in question. This contention did not impress the learned judge who 
tried the cause, which is said to be now on appeal from his decision. 

In all cases this Board is concerned to exercise the utmost care that any 
step it may take should not interfere with or affect personal rights which are 
under litigation. And if action on the part of the Board, or on the part of any 
of its officials, would seem to have such result, application to rescind the same 
would be readily entertained. But in the case now before us, there seems to be 
no ground for such apprehension, for the matter is in this position: The expro- 
priation proceedings were admittedly taken before the plan was approved and if 
such approval be a condition precedent to the commencement of such proceed- 




REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 63 

ings then, undoubtedly, all that the railway company has done in the way of 
taking the land in question is without legal foundation, and the defence thereon 
must fall to the ground, and no action of the Board invalidating the plan is 
required in order to entitle her to succeed. On the other hand, if, as was 
successfully contended in the trial court, the approval of the Board's Chief 
Engineer was not a condition precedent, but simply an incident to the proceed- 
ings the omission of which can be supplied at any time, it is not open to the 
complainant to ask that the plan be invalidated on that ground. 

For this reason I think the application should not be granted on the ground 
that such approval has prejudiced or injured the complainant in the prosecu- 
tion of her suit in the civil court. 

And as far as concerns what might be termed the merits of the case, wherein 
it is claimed that the layout is improper and that access to the street within 
the subway should not be given to any frontager, but that in some manner such 
entrance should be carried to the level portion of Bloor street, regard must be 
had to the conditions prevailing. 

The subway in question has a length of 786 feet, and at the lowest part 
thereof it is 17 feet below the elevation of the street. There is a clearance of 14 
feet between the lowest steel structure and the travelled portion of the subway. 
The entrance which is provided by the plans, and complained of in these proceed- 
ings, is to the Loblaw business establishment. This entrance is shown as coming 
into the subway about 100 feet from, its western end, there being at the point of 
entrance a drop of about 4-V feet. The street forming such proposed entrance 
is laid out to a, width of 42 feet and comes, into the subway from, the south: side. 
The total width of the subway is 66 feet, of which 45 feet are available for 
vehicular traffic, at that point. 

It will be readily conceded that wherever practicable subways should be 
kept free from side entrances, but a glance at the conditions prevailing through- 
out the city of Toronto and elsewhere makes it apparent that such ideal arrange- 
ments cannot always be maintained. ' Counsel for the complainant, and for the 
city as well, strongly urged that while it is. true that other subways throughout 
the city carry side entrances similar to the one under construction, yet the con- 
ditions existing at the time such subways were built made it impossible to pro- 
vide otherwise. 

Objection was also made on account of the nature of the vehicles with which 
the Loblaw Company conveys the product of its factory or warehouse to its 
various grocery stores throughout the city, complaining that the length of such 
vehicles would result in a dangerous situation as they come in and out of the 
proposed side street. 

As described by the learned counsel for the complainant, the procedure 
now followed in that respect seems to present elements of risk, but this, I think, 
must be taken care of by civic regulations, and, undoubtedly, the question of 
civil liability on the part of anyone using the streets in a reckless manner will 
play some part in rectifying an evil of that nature, if any such may exist. 

I think each application of this kind must be dealt with having regard to 
all the circumstances attendant upon the application and the conditions pre- 
vailing in the locality. From a personal examination made upon the ground, 
and from a realization of the manifest objection, especially from a monetary 
standpoint, to the course urged by the complainant, I do not feel that the 
approval of the plan in question by the Board's Engineer should be reversed; 
and for the reasons above indicated I am of the opinion that the application 
should be dismissed. 



64 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

COMPLAINT DISTRICT OF SAANICH, B.C., re GORDON HEAD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE — 
BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY 

Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, April 20, 1925, concurred in by Mr. Com- 
missioner Oliver. Vide Judgment of Assistant Chief Commissioner, April 
15, 1925, and Judgment of Chief Commissioner, May 14, 1925. 

Commissioner Boyce: 

By section 12, subsection (2), of the Railway Act, the decision of either 
the Chief Commissioner, or the Assistant Chief Commissioner, upon a question 
of law arising in a case then before the Board, in which either one or the other 
preside, must prevail. I am, therefore, bound by the decision of the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner, who presided in this case, at its hearing, upon the question 
of law. in disposing of this complaint. 

"With great respect, however, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that I do 
not hold quite the same view. While admitting the soundness of the principles 
of the decisions cited, as applied to the facts then in issue, and that as regards 
telephone companies under its jurisdiction, the exercise of the Board's functions 
is, by the Railway Act, limited to rate regulation and control, I am strongly of 
the opinion that the full exercise of those functions should not be blocked, and 
was never intended to be blocked, by the interposition of a plea, by a telephone 
company, that the tariffs, or tolls, complained of, resulted from the exercise of 
the discretion of the telephone company in changing its telephone exchange 
areas, and, for that reason, the Board was stripped of its power to control the 
rates so imposed, except upon the one ground of unjust discrimination. I do not 
so read the provisions of the Act, and I think they are not subject to that 
restricted interpretation, or construction. See Railway Act, section 375, sub- 
section (2). 

I think that it is quite open to the Board, in all cases of this kind, upon a 
full and searching inquiry into the facts of each case, to refuse to allow the 
increase in tolls effected by the company, in the manner in which such increases 
were brought about in this case, having regard to the duty of the Board to 
exercise full and unrestricted control of the telephone tolls in the interests of 
the public as well as of the company. 

I would deprecate and deplore the suggestion that this Board's powers to 
remedy what seems to me to be, in its effect, a substantial rate grievance, should 
be confined and circumscribed in the manner referred to, and I do not think 
that the principle of the decisions cited carry us that far. 

If such rate consequence, as are the basis of this complaint, can be inflicted 
by a telephone company, whose tolls are subject to the Board's jurisdiction, 
without redress by anyone, under the guise, or excuse, of rearrangement of tele- 
phone exchanges, with the result that the Board's jurisdiction over tolls involved 
is ousted, the Board's control of telephone tolls would be easily displaced in 
many conceivable cases, involving serious and unjust hardship upon the sub- 
scribers, under the cloak, protection, and plea, that what resulted in increase of 
tolls to subscribers was done in rearrangement by the company of its telephone 
exchange areas, and is, therefore, not reviewable by this Board. 

If that be the effect of the decisions cited, I respectfully suggest that they 
should be reviewed by the Board to determine whether variation is not desirable 
in such a way as to permit of the widest control of all rate grievances, however 
arising, and no matter to what cause attributable, in accord with the broad and 
remedial spirit, meaning, and intent, of those sections of the Railway Act, con- 
ferring power on this Board as to control of telephone rates and tolls. I think 
that it is not within the meaning and intent of the Act that the full investigation 
of such grievances should be so barred or restricted. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 65 

In consonance with above, and subject to my view as to the application of 
section 12, subsection (2) of the Railway Act, and with great respect to opinion 
to the contrary expressed by the Assistant Chief Commissioner, who presided at 
the hearing, I would give effect to this complaint as one going directly to the 
question of rates to the subscribers affected by the change, in telephone exchange 
area, and who complain against the increased rate burden thereby imposed upon 
them. If because the facility clauses of the Act do not apply to telephone 
companies, the company can change its telephone areas at will, I am strongly of 
opinion that in the circumstances complained of, it should not be permitted, as 
a consequence of such change, to make, directly or indirectly, any change in 
rates, which would have the effect of increasing the rates to the subscribers in 
the area complaining, and the Board, in my view, should so Order. _ The onus 
would then rest with the telephone company to readjust its rates to this principle, 
and if it sees fit, make such application as may be necessary for the purpose. 
In all such cases, i.e. of changes in telephone exchange areas, involving changes 
in rates, I think that the burde nof shewing that the altered or new schedule of 
tolls consequent upon such change was fair and reasonable and not discrimina- 
tory, is on the telephone company making the change resulting in the altered 
schedule, and not upon the subscribers, who, otherwise, by a change in telephone 
area, not controllable by the Board, might be subjected to increased tolls. I 
think the placing of the onus thus on the company initiating for its own 
convenience of operation, such a change of exchange area would be just and 
equitable and in accord with the true intent, spirit and meaning of those sections 
of the Railway Act applicable to telephone tolls, and which it is the duty of the 
Board to administer in all cases in the interest of the subscriber, the telephone 
company and the public. I do not think that, in such an event, the subscribers 
whose interests are affected, perhaps prejudicially, by an act beyond the power 
of this Board to control, should be called upon to accept such an onus. 

In this case the interest of subscribers are prejudicially affected, and the 
company has not, in my opinion, justified the prejudice as it should be required 
to do. 

McLean, Assistant Chief Commissioner: 

Under date of October 2, 1924, the following memorandum of Reasons for 
Judgment — enclosed within quotation marks — was signed by me: — 

" The Board had before it a resolution of the Corporation of the District 
of Saanich, B.C., protesting against the ' proposed extension of the Gordon Head 
Telephone Exchange by including Mt. Tolmie and Cadboro Bay Districts;' and 
setting out the opposition of the council to the change, and its desire to co-operate 
with the people concerned as well as with the Victoria Chamber of Commerce 
against the change. 

No detailed statement of the facts involved was at the time submitted. It 
was, however, understood by the Board that what was involved was the question 
of the Exchange area; and with a view to the applicants considering factors 
which had been before the Board in other connections, they were referred to the 
Complaint of the British Columbia Municipalities re new Exchange established 
at Karrisdale, B.C., Board's Judgments and Orders, December 1, 1921, Vol. II t 
p. 325. 

The applicants were so advised so they might consider in what respects, if 
any, the Judgment in the Kerrisdale Case was not applicable to what was herein 
involved. 

At a later date, the Board received from Mr. F. G. Aldous, Secretary of the 
Cadboro Bay Committee re British Columbia Telephone Company, a statement 
as to the points involved, which were later developed in evidence. 

25486—5 



66 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

As presented before the Board, the situation is that for a considerable 
period of time residents 'in the Cadboro Bay District have been connected with 
the Victoria Exchange. It was stated that for a rate of $3.40 per month the 
user had access to all those on the telephone lines within the Victoria area. 

The Gordon Head Exchange is about five miles from the Victoria Exchange. 
The Gordon Head District itself is stated to be 1.81 miles from, Cadboro Bay. 
The company stated that the Gordon Head area as a whole was growing and 
they found it necessary to erect a building and establish an exchange; and that 
in laying out the boundaries of this exchange, they were of the opinion that 
Cadboro Bay should be included. In its rearrangement, the local calling rate 
for Cadboro Bay is $1.50 per month. This is on a six-party line. Calls from 
this area to Victoria are 5 cents and are a number-to-number charge. It was 
stated by the representative of Cadboro Bay that the Gordon Head district 
had always been used to the 5-cent toll. 

Details were submitted regarding the service on the toll system which was 
claimed to be unsatisfactory; but it was pointed out to the applicants that the 
Board's jurisdiction was concerned with rates. 

In substance, the complaint of the representative of Cadboro Bay is that 
the rearrangement whereby the local calling rate does not cover Victoria as 
well is objectionable, because there are established social and business relations 
between this district and Victoria which are interfered with by the rearrange- 
ment of rates. The argument in this respect is that if a calling rate of four 
calls per day, which is said to be low, exists, then the total charges involved 
will be so great as to prevent ready telephonic communication between Cadboro 
Bay and Victoria. 

It was testified by one storekeeper that his business was so located that 
people who could have telephoned him on the Victoria flat rate would, in future, 
need to pay tolls, and it was intimated tliat this would interfere with his busi- 
ness. He at the same time stated that while he did a little business in the 
Gordon Head district, there was already a storekeeper in this section to meet 
the needs of the people living in that part. 

While the charges involved were criticized on the ground that the total 
of the local calling rate and of the toll rate would be an increased burden, 
neither factor in the total charge — that is to say, the local calling rate and the 
toll — was criticized as being either unreasonable or discriminatory. 

The applicants urged their case very strongly and there is no doubt a 
strong feeling that they had been and would be detrimentally affected by the 
arrangement involved. However, the fundamental question is the power of the 
Board in the matter. 

As already pointed out, the representative of the applicants was at the out- 
set referred to the decision in the Kerrisdale Case, so that he might consider 
fully in what, if any, respects that decision was not applicable to what is here 
involved. 

The representative of the Cadboro Bay Committee was apparently not 
acquainted with the decision; at least, he did not devote any attention to it, 
although the matter was referred to by the clerk of Saanich municipality, who 
claimed that the state of facts involved in the Kerrisdale Case was not on all 
fours with that involved in the present case. 

The matter was allowed to stand so that the Board could have a full oppor- 
tunity of determining in what respects, if any the facts involved in the present 
application are differentiated from those which have already been dealt with by 
the Board in other judgments dealing with the powers of the telephone company 
in respect of the rearrangement of exchange areas. On such determination, 
manifestly depends the conclusion whether there is a grievance which it is within 
the powers of the Board to remedy. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 67 

In 1915, the Board had before it a case in which it was held that it had no 
jurisdiction to deal with the rearrangement of the telephone company's service 
between different exchanges, the matter being one of the internal management of 
its own business. 

Tinkess vs. Bell Telephone Co., 20 C.R.C., 249. The judgment rendered 
was concurred in by three other Commissioners — Chief Commissioner Drayton, 
Deputy Chief Commissioner Nantel, and Commissioner Goodeve. 

The judgment in question sets out in quite full detail the limitations of the 
Board's power in regard to telephones, and the way in which these powers are 
differentiated from those exercisable in regard to railways; and after analyzing 
these sections, the following opinion was expressed at p. 253: — 

" it will be found that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Board in 
respect of telephone companies is a rate jurisdiction, including under 
such rate jurisdiction the provisions of the Railway Act in regard to dis- 
crimination." 

It is not necessary to go into the detail of this judgment, but it may be 
pointed out that under the hitherto existing arrangement the applicant, who was 
connected with the Kemptville Exchange, had also free service to North Gower. 
A change of connection was made to South Mountain, which entailed a toll being 
made for connection from North Gower. The applicant stated that a very con- 
siderable portion of his business was with the latter point, it being stated by 
him that this would affect one-third of the free territory which was now 
available to him. Detail was put in in regard to the burden of traffic on the 
lines and this was analyzed from the standpoint of congestion. The decision of 
the Board, however, makes clear that the exchange service involved not being 
a matter over which the Board had jurisdiction, it could not revise tolls on 
the basis of whether there was or was not between the exchanges in question a 
congested condition of service. 

In summing up its conclusions, the Board used the following language: — 

" The company in the present application is making a readjustment 
of its exchange service. The adjustment as to exchange connection will 
no doubt extend the free area in one direction while curtailing it in 
another. Some of the applicants have established a business connection 
in the area in which there will now be a telephone charge. The statistics 
submitted by the Bell Telephone Company would seem to show that the 
preponderance of telephone calls will be met, without the extra, toll charge, 
by the rearrangement which it proposes. This is contested by the appli- 
cants. The rates charged are not attacked. Allegations of discrimination 
are not made. The rearrangement which the Bell Telephone Company 
proposes to make is a matter of the internal management of its business. 
Parliament has conferred upon the Board no jurisdiction to deal with the 
matter involved, and, therefore no further action in the matter can be 
taken by the Board." 

In 1921, in the Complaint of the Town of Dundas, et al, vs. Bell Telephone 
Company, the Board had before it nine complaints. The decision in question will 
be found in the Board's Judgments and Orders, May 15, 1921, Vol. XI, p. 83. 
What was involved in the various applications was the question of rearrange- 
ments of district rates proposed by the Bell Telephone Company. For example, 
there existed a district rate between Dundas and Hamilton under which sub- 
scribers in Hamilton might have free connection with subscribers in Dundas, 
with the exception of the rural 'lines, by paying the Hamilton rate. Under the 
existing arrangement, the telephone user in Dundas might exercise his option 

25486— 5£ 



68 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

of having the Dundas rate and paying toll rates for any messages he might 
have between Dundas and Hamilton. On the other hand, he could pay the 
Hamilton rate receiving full access to the telephones of both places. It was 
stated the arrangement had been of long duration, it having been in existence 
for some forty years. 

The telephone company proposed that the exchanges should be separated, 
each doing business on its own exchange rate; and a provision was made taking 
care of the interchange business by means of long distance toll rates. At first, 
it had been proposed to provide a 10-cent long distance call charge for the 
sen-ice between Dundas and Hamilton; subsequently, this was revised by putting 
a two-party sendee on the 5-cent charge. 

In opposition to the proposal of the Bell Telephone Company to effect the 
rearrangement referred to, there was adduced not only the long duration but 
also the contention that, the rearrangement proposed would effect an increase in 
the revenues of the telephone company. 

The judgment followed the decision in the Tinkess Case and concluded 
with the following words at p. 91: — 

"As I understand the law, therefore, the district rearrangements 
proposed are within the scope of the company's! powers,' and the Board 
has not been empowered to interfere with what is a matter of the internal 
management of the business, except where the question of discrimination 
is raised. Those opposing the revision did not raise the question of dis- 
crimination." 

The judgment rendered was concurred in by two other Commissioners — Chief 
Commissioner Carvell and Commissioner Boyce. 

The matter was also before the Board in the latter parti of 1921 in the 
Complaint of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities re new Exchange 
established at Kerrisdale, and increase in Long Distance tolls. Board's Judge- 
ments and Orders, Vol. XI, p. 325. The judgment rendered was concurred in 
by Commissioner Rutherford. 

In the application, reference w r as made to the division of the exchange 
territory hitherto attaching to the Eburne Exchange. It was pointed out that 
the result of this; was that the toll charge now became operative between Ker- 
risdale and Eburne; and it was argued that thiis toll was in the nature of a 
long distance rate and that as long distance rates had not been included in the 
application of the British Columbia Telephone Company in regard to rates, 
with which the Board had dealt at an earlier date, they were without sanction. 

These matters are not, however, material to what is herein involved. What 
i* material is that the judgment reaffirmed the position taken in the Tinkess 
Case and in the Town of Dundas et al vs. Bell Telephone Company. 

It was admitted by counsel for the Union of British Columbia Municipali- 
ties that there was nothing in the legislation of the telephone company concerned 
which widened the powers; in regard to telephone facilities over and above the 
grant of power given by the Railway Act. As to' the 5-cent toll concerned 
between the two exchanges above referred to, it was pointed out that the toll 
was not attacked as being either unreasonable or discriminatory, and that in 
the absence of such attack the Board had no power to intervene. 

Having in mind the principles enunciated by the Board in the judgments 
above referred to, which judgments extend over a considerable period of time, 
I have to conclude that on the particular facts involved in the present applica- 
tion there is nothing to take them out from under the decisions I have cited." 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 69 

II 

Following this, Commissioner Boyce wrote a draft judgment, which may 
be summarized as follows: — 

(1) The question involved was a question of law and, therefore, the opinion 
of the Assistant Chief Commissioner, who presided, prevailed under section 12, 
subsection 2 of the Railway Act. 

(2) While holding that the matter turned on a question of law, Commis- 
sioner Boyce, however, did not agree with the construction which, following the 
decisions, I placed on the matter. 

(3) He considered that the Board in this case was confronted by an 
increase in tolls, and that the Board had full jurisdiction to deal with or disallow 
such increases untrammelled by the decisions which had been stated. 

In holding there was an increase in tolls, he dealt with the total possible 
charge made up of the local exchange rate, plus the total computed or estimated 
toll rate charges between the exchanges, as constituting an increase in tolls. 

(4) Thereafter, he stated that if the decisions quoted had the effect con- 
tended, they should be reviewed to determine " Whether variation is not desir- 
able in such a way as to permit of the wideft control of all rate grievances 
however arising. . I. . > " 

Owing to his absence in the West in connection with the Board's sittings and 
subsequent absence due to illhealth, Commissioner Oliver was not able to con- 
sider the matter until about the middle of December. In his memorandum, he 
does not refer to the decisions which I have quoted. As I understand his posi- 
tion, it is in substance, — 

(1) That the complaint is one as to rates and within the jurisdiction of 
the Board; 

(2) That the evidence adduced showed that the subscribers of Cadboro Bay 
had suffered substantial and serious injury through change in telephone rates; 

(3) That no evidence had been adduced justifying the increase; 

(4) That the rates and conditions should be re-established as they were 
prior to February 26, 1924. 

Following this, my colleagues who sat with me in the original hearing 
arrived at the conclusion that a question arose as to whether the decision in the 
case turned on law or on fact, and they took the position that there being such 
a difference in this regard, and there being involved the further question of 
looking at the whole matter from the standpoint of the bearing of the decision 
on other matters pending, the opinion of the Chief Commissioner should be 
asked for. 

I take no exception — nor do I consider that I have any right to take any 
such exception — to a change in draft memoranda of judgment, if, before they 
are issued, further consideration seems to justify such a change. I recognize 
that, under the Railway Act, the decision of the Assistant Chief Commissioner, 
when presiding, is final on a question of law, when, in the opinion of the 
Commissioners sitting, or a majority of them, there is a question of law involved. 

As the situation developed, my colleagues were of the opinion that there 
was not a clear-cut question of law involved and that the question concerned 
was so mixed with fact as to weaken the efficiency of section 12, subsection 2. 
Under these circumstances, my colleagues were, of course, quite . within their 
rights in taking the action I have summarized. 

The matter was then placed before the Chief Commissioner who has given 
the subject consideration. His opinion in the matter has been considered by 
my colleagues, who have now placed said opinion before me. 



70 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

III 

In the earlier portions of my reasons for judgment above quoted, I have 
cited the decisions which appear to me to be pertinent and controlling; and I 
may be permitted to point out that the decisions which I have cited and which 
with gnat respect to the opinion of the Chief Commissioner hereinafter cited, 
I am unable to accept as being inapplicable to what is involved in the present 
case, were rendered at different dates. Excluding the present application, the 
cases in question were dealt with in the period extending from 1910 to 1921. 
During the period when the decisions in question were rendered, twelve Commis- 
sioners held office; ten of the Commissioners who so held office participated in 
the hearings and agreed in the decisions. 

In citing the decisions above, it was assumed that the findings of the Board 
thereunder were so clearly established that it was not necessary to go into any 
considerable volume of analytical detail to show exactly what was involved. 
Having in mind the way in which the situation has developed in the present 
case, it is justifiable, with a view to making clearer what is involved, to present 
a summary analysis of the points contained in the evidence and in the decisions 
to which reference has been made*. 

Division of Territory. — In the Dundas Case, Weston, Islington and New 
Toronto were grouped in one division. It was proposed to divide these so that 
in one group would be Weston, while New Toronto and Islington would be in 
the other, with a toll charge between the two groups. The judgment. sanctioned 
this (see p. 85). 

In the question arising between Dundas and Hamilton, those resident in 
Dundas had a local exchange rate of their own. In addition, an arrangement 
had grown up and which had existed for years whereby a resident of Dundas, 
by paying the Hamilton rate, could have access to all names on the Hamilton 
exchange. What was proposed by the company was to substitute for the hitherto 
existing practice an arrangement whereunder the Hamilton rate would no longer 
be applicable to the Dundas telephone user. Instead of this, he would pay 
the local exchange rate, plus a 10- cent toll in the case of a call from Dundas 
to Hamilton. This was modified so that a 5-cent call charge was installed. 
This was sanctioned by the judgment (see pp. 83 and 91). 

Rockwood and Guelph were two separate exchanges, eight miles apart. For 
a period of ten or twelve years, an arrangement had existed whereby there was 
a direct connection with Guelph, without the interposition of another inter-zone 
toll. The judgment sanctioned the rearrangement (Dundas Case, p. 86). 

Welland, Ridgeville, Smithville, Wellandport and Marshville were separate 
exchanges which had been on a common rate; that is to say, the names in the 
various exchanges might be reached without the intervention of an inter-zone 
toll. The company proposed to make two groups of exchanges, the first being 
composed of Ridgeville and Welland, and the second of the other three exchanges; 
an inter-zone toll to apply between. The judgment in the Dundas Case sanc- 
tioned this (p. 86). 

A similar position was taken in other cases. In the Kerrisdale Case, the 
effect of what was proposed was to divide the exchange territory of the Eburne 
Exchange into two parts, so that a toll charge was operative between Kerrisdale 
and Eburne (see Judgment, p. 326). 

In the Tinkess Case, it was contended by the applicant that the rearrange- 
ment proposed affected one-third of the free territory which the applicant had 
now available (Tinkess Case, p. 250). It was further set out that some of the" 
applicants had established a business connection in the area in which, under 
the rearrangement proposed by the company, there would no longer be free ser- 
vice out, instead, a telephone charge (p. 255). 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 71 

It was stated further in the Judgment, at p. 255, that the company in its 
application was making a readjustment of its exchange service, and it was 
pointed out that the adjustment as to exchange connection would, no doubt, 
extend the free area in one direction while curtailing it in another. 

Increased Revenue. — In the Dundas Case, it was contended that a result 
of the rearrangement proposed would mean that those formerly enjoying the 
Hamilton connection on the Hamilton rate would be subjected to increased 
costs as a result of the combination of the Dundas rate and the inter-zone calling 
rate (see p. 85). 

In the same connection, reference may be made to the statement submitted 
in evidence by Mr. Dickson, on behalf of the Dundas telephone users. This 
will be found in Evid. Vol 313, pp. 9287-9288. In pointing to the effect of the 
10-cent toll which was proposed, he said this would mean that business sub- 
scribers in Dundas would pay from 76 per cent to 185 per cent more than at 
present. This was on a basis of 3.6 calls per day for the seventy-nine sub- 
scribers taking the Hamilton service. 

In the same connection, at pp. 9289 and 9291, he spoke of the large 
increase in revenue, saying there would be a large increase in revenue to the 
company and a corresponding large increase in cost to the users. 

The same position was taken at the same hearing in regard to the effect on 
the township of Wainfleet (see p. 9292) and also in regard to the effect on Vine- 
land and Jordon of Grimsby being put in a position where it was necessary to 
have a toll charge to get conversation through (p. 9305). 

The increases in revenue thus referred to are made up of earnings on the 
combination of the local exchange rate, plus the inter-zone calling rate. It is not 
a case of the single rate hitherto existing being compared with the single rate 
now installed. It should be noted that one part of the computation, so far as 
the inter-zone toll is concerned, is based upon averages and assumptions in regard 
to the amount of calling involved. 

In the group of applications dealt with under the heading of the Dundas 
Gate, the local exchange rate was not lower; but, as pointed out, there was a 
rearrangement of territory involving the use of the inter-zone calling rate 
between sections which formerly were under a common exchange rate. 

In the Cadboro Bay Case, there is, as a result of the readjustment, a 
decreased local exchange rate in the new exchange territory, plus an inter-zone 
calling toll between Cadboro Bay and Victoria. 

While the Board had before it in the Dundas Case and in the Tinkess Case 
evidence bearing upon alleged increases of revenue arising from the readjust- 
ment, what was held was, in substance, that in the absence of evidence that the 
rates installed under the readjustment were unreasonable, the mere allegation 
of increased revenue, dependent as such allegation is upon conjecture as to the 
average toll business between zones, was not a factor which justified the Board 
preventing the rearrangement which the company proposed, with its attendant 
readjustment in rates. 

Rates and Toll Charges. — Incident to the foregoing heading, it has bees 
pointed out that in the Dundas Case there was involved a rate within a 
rearranged district, plus a toll to points beyond, which were formerly treated as 
being in the same area. From the judgment, the following may be excerpted: — 

"While there has been a revision of rates, the principle of a lower 
toll rate, limited to a particular type of service and taking into considera- 
tion density of traffic has not been withdrawn in the Hamilton-Dundas 
case, and the burden therefore remains on the Company of putting in 
for this traffic a two-number rate substantially lower than the standard 
two-number rate. In doing so, the company bears the burden of any 
attack made on the ground that the arrangement is discriminatory. 



72 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

"While in the case of the other districts affected, criticism was made 
that the revision would affect revenues the toll proposed to be charged 
between the rearranged portions of what was hitherto a common district 
was not attacked as unreasonable. Under these conditions, no action in 
respect of the application of the standard long distance rates is neces- 
sary.''' Dundas Case, p. 91. 

In the Tinkcss Case, at p. 255, it was pointed out that the rates were not 
attacked. The rates in question are the local Exchange rates as distinct from 
the inter-zone toll rates. 

In the Kcri-isdale Case, pp. 328, 329, the inter-zone toll was not attacked 
as unreasonable or discriminatory. 

IV 

In a more condensed way, as I understand them, the judgments recognize 
the right of the telephone company to readjust its facilities, and in connection 
therewith to readjust the exchange areas served by such facilities. As a result 
of this, the telephone company may have a local Exchange rate plus an inter- 
zone toll rate. Allegations of increased revenue arising from such an arrange- 
ment do not, under the judgments, afford criteria of the relative unreasonable- 
ness, or otherwise, of the rates concerned. It is open to those protesting against 
the rearrangement to attack as unreasonable for the local service within the 
revised exchange territory the local exchange rate applicable thereto, or (and) 
to attack as unreasonable the inter-zone calling rate. It is open, further, to 
those protesting to allege that the treatment proposed to be given as a result of 
the rearrangement of rates arising from the rearrangement of territoy is dis- 
criminatory. 

As pointed out in memorandum of reasons for judgment above, neither 
the local exchange rate nor the inter-zone toll was attacked as unreasonable by 
the applicant, nor is there anything before the Board persuasive in regard to 
the existence of discriminatory treatment. 

As the matter presents itself to me, then, what is involved in the present 
application is covered clearly and fully by what is involved in the hearings and 
decisions in the series; of cases which has engaged the Board's attention; and 
I am forced to the conclusion that the only position I can take is a re-affirmation 
of my statement that what is herein involved is covered by the line of controlling 
cases. 



The Chief Commissioner, in his opinion, quotes the following from evid- 
ence: — 

"After considerable evidence had been given and argument made on 
both sides, the matter was summed up thus: — 

"The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Is not this what it comes 
to? In the discussion, there are two factors; one is the local rate of 
si. 50; and the other is the admission of what will be the effect in the 
future, and the applicant putting it forward states that taking the rate 
plus what the usual calling has been, or what their anticipation of the 
calling business will be, that the two will give a higher rate between their 
section and Victoria than they are paying at present. 

"Mr. McPhillips: That may be so. I cannot refute that. 

"The Assistant Chief Commissioner: That is the essence of what 
they are saying. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 73 

"Mr. McPhillips: Yes. But I am saying I do not care where you 
make the division, you will have some one who will be able to make 
that case. Now, is that a case of the division or of the rate? My sub- 
mission to you is that in every case like that it is a case of division and 
not of rate. 

" Commissioner Oliver: If there is no question of rate, all you 
have to do is to give these people their single call under their flat rate. 

"Mr. McPhillips: I do not understand that, sir. 

" Commissioner Oliver: I say if there is no question of rate, all 
you have to do is to make your division as you please, but give them 
their single call as a part of their rate, if there is no question of rate. 

"The Assistant Chief Commissioner: The objection to the divi- 
sion is that they think a necessary consequence of it will be a greater 
burden of rate charge. 

"Mr. McPhillips: I am admitting that. I say that will occur in 
any division you make. 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Then are we not getting 
off on a metaphysical distinction when you say it is not a rate question. 
What is being talked about is the rate burden or charge resulting from a 
division of territory. 

"Mr. McPhillips: That may be. I am admitting that that may 
be so in any division we may make. 

" Commissioner Boyce: They say you can make what division you 
like, in accordance with the best judgment of the management of your 
company, but do not increase our rates by so doing. 

"Mr. McPhillips: Yes, but have thev a right to say that?" 
At page 4662:— 

"The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Then that is really the 
essential thing — the change of rate? 

"Mr. Sewell: Yes, I think that is the essential thing." 
At page 4664: Mr. Aldous (first witness called) stated: — 

" On May 13, Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the Board of Railway Com- 
missioners on this matter of the telephone company. Before reading this 
letter, 1 quite understand that your Board deals entirely with matters 
of rates; you have advised me on that point, and although there are many 
other reasons for our objections in this matter, I will try to stick to the 
point of rates, and I will ask you to listen to our petition impartially." 

If anything turns on the significance of my statements as bearing on the 
matter, I may point out that in order to facilitate the discussion and render the 
matter presented by the applicant more easy of comprehension, I was sum- 
marizing what was said, not acquiescing in the conclusiveness of the summary 
as a matter of interpretation, 

After reaffirming the position that the Board has no jurisdiction over the 
telephone company in respect of any rearrangement of exchange areas which it 
might determine, the Chief Commissioner continues: — 

" There still remains the question of the reasonableness of the rates 
charged, and I am not aware of any case which denies the Board's right 
to determine that matter. In the judgment of the Town of Dundas et al 
v the Bell Telephone Co., Board's Judgments and Orders, Vol. XI, p. 88, 



74 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

it is \stated: 'While in the case of the other districts affected, criticism 
was made that the revision would affect revenues, the toll proposed to be 
charged between the rearranged portions of what was hitherto a common 
district was not attacked as unreasonable.' " 

The Chief Commissioner continuing states that in his opinion the foregoing 

itioD from the Dundas Case "is the point which distinguishes the present 
case from the one from which this quotation is made, and others cited in the 
Judgment. For instance, Tinkess v. Bell Telephone Co., in which, at p. 255, the 
judgment states: 'the rates charged are not attacked.' In other words, I think 
if a rearrangement of district involves an increase of rates, while the right to 
effect such rearrangement cannot be questioned by the Board, nevertheless the 
jurisdiction to supervise the reasonableness of the rates as so increased still 

- with us. Consequently, dropping the question of rearrangement of 
exchange areas altogether, I think the Board should determine the reasonable- 
ness of the rates proposed to be charged." 

The only comment I have to make is that, as already pointed out in the 
Cadboro Bay Case, neither the local exchange rate by itself nor the inter-zone 
rate by itself was attacked as unreasonable; and, as pointed out, the analysis 
of the evidence and decisions is equally applicable not only to the earlier cases 
but also to the present one as well. Consequently I am unable to attribute to 
the citation in question the significance which the Chief Commissioner does. 

The position as to the controlling effect of authority having been adversely 
ruled upon, the matter now appears to stand as one involving the reasonable- 
ness of rates. 

Memorandum by the Chief Commissioner: 

I have read over the evidence submitted, as well as the papers filed in this 
case. The proceedings were instituted by filing a copy of a resolution passed 
by the Council of the Corporation of the District of Saanich, in which it went 
on record as opposing a proposed change in connection with the British Columbia 
Telephone Company in the districts surrounding the city of Victoria. 

Under instructions from Dr. McLean, a letter was written to Mr. Sewell, 
who forwarded the complaint, advising him that the Board is unable to make 
any direction to prevent changes in telephone exchange area. I think this 
instruction was correct and quite in accordance with the procedure followed by 
the Board. Further communications were exchanged between the Board and 
the municipality and the telephone company, which resulted in the matter being 
set down for hearing under instructions from the late Chief Commissioner, and 
when it came up for consideration before the Board at Victoria in June, 1924, 
in the evidence submitted, the complaint developed into a protest against the 
rates; the question of the propriety of change of districts was not followed up, 
and all parties seem to have acquiesced in treating the hearing as having to do 
with the rate charged, or to be charged, for the use of telephones; and upon 
that ground the intervention of the Board was sought. After considerable evi- 
dence had been given and argument made on both sides, the matter was summed 
up thus: — 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Is not this what it comes to? 
In the discussion there are two factors: one is the local rate of $1.50, 
and the other is the admission of what will be the effect in the future, and 
the applicant putting it forward states that taking the rate plus what 
the usual calling has been, or what their anticipation of the calling business 
will be, that the two will give a higher rate between their sections and 
Victoria than they are paying at present. 

" Mr. McPhillips: That may be so. I cannot refute that. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 75 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: That is the essence of what 
they are saying. 

" Mr. McPhillips: Yes. But I am saying I do not care where you 
make the division, you will have someone who will be able to make that 
case. Now is that a case of the division or of the rate? My submission 
to you is that in every case like that it is a case of division and not 
of rate. 

" Commissioner Oliver: If there is no question of rate, all you 
have to do is to give these people their single call under their flat rate. 

"Mr. McPhillips: I do not understand that, sir. 

" Commissioner Oliver: I say if there is no question of rate, all 
you have to do is to make your division as you please, but give them 
their single call as a part of that rate, if there is no question of rate. 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: The objection to the divi- 
sion is that they think a necessary consequence of it will be a greater 
burden of rate charge. 

Mr. McPhillips: I am admitting that. I say that will occur in 
any division you make. 

"The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Then are we not getting off 
on a metaphysical distinction when you say it is not a rate question? 
What is being, talked about is the rate burden or charge resulting from 
a division of territory, 

" Mr. McPhillips: That may be. I am admitting that that may be 
so in any division we may make. 

" Commissioner Boyce: They say you can make what division 
you like, in accordance with the best judgment of the management of 
your company, but do not increase our rates by so doing, 

" Mr. McPhillips: Yes, but have they a right to say that?" 

At page 4662:— 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: Then that is really the 
essential thing — the change of rate? 

" Mr. Sewell: Yes, I think that is the essential thing." 
at page 4664: Mr. Aldous (first witness called) stated: — 

"On May 13, Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the Board of Railway 
Commissioners on this matter of the telephone company. Before reading 
this letter, I quite understand that your Board deals entirely with matters 
of rates; you have advised me on that point, and although there are many 
other reasons for our objections in this matter, I will try to stick to the 
point of rates, and I will ask you to listen to our petition impartially." 

The case being left in the above shape, I think it is a question of fact 
which is involved, having to do with the reasonableness of the rates charge. 
and must be determined by the Commissioners who heard the evidence. 

I quite agree with the view expressed by the Assistant Chief Commissioner, 
that we have no jurisdiction over the telephone company in respect of any 
arrangement of exchange areas which it might determine, and if that were all 
that is involved in the present application it should be summarily dismissed. 
But, admitting that the Board has no authority over that feature of this appli- 
cation (which seems to have been dropped at the hearing), there still remains 
the question of the reasonableness of the rates charged, and I am not aware 
of any case which denies the Board's right to determine that matter. In the 
judgment of the Town of Dundas et al v. Bell Telephone Company, Board's 



76 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Judgments and Orders, Vol. XI, p. 83, it is stated: " While in the case of the 
other districts affected, criticism was made that the revision would affect 
revenues, the toll proposed to be charged between the rearranged portions of 
what was hitherto a common district was not attacked as unreasonable." I 
think this is the point which distinguishes the present case from the one from 
which this quotation is made, and others cited in the judgment. For instance, 
Tinkess v. Bell Telephone Company, in which, at p. 255, the judgment states: 
" The rates charged are not attacked." In other words, I think if a rearrange- 
ment of district involves an increase of rates, while the right to effect such 
rearrangement cannot be questioned by this Board, nevertheless the jurisdiction 
to supervise the reasonableness of the rates as so increased still abides with us. 
Consequently, dropping the question of rearrangement of exchange areas alto- 
gether, I think the Board should determine the reasonableness of the rates pro- 
posed to be charged. 

Memorandum 

Ottawa, May 14, 1925. 

The hearing in this matter was held on June 25, 1924, before I became a 
member of the Board. A difference of opinion having developed between the 
members of the Board who heard the case, I was requested by them to express 
my opinion upon the points at issue between them, and my views thereon are 
contained in the memorandum above, dated January 17, 1925. In view of the 
reference made to my above memorandum, I think it should go out to the 
parties interested. 

APPLICATION TOWNSHIP OF MURRAY re REPAIRS TO HIGHWAY 

Judgment Assistant Chief Commissioner, May 20, 1925, concurred in by 

Mr. Commissioner Boyce 

What is involved is concerned with a diverted highway north of the Cana- 
dian National Railways at Trenton Junction, in the township of Murray, Ont. 
The highway in question was constructed by the Grand Trunk Railway Com- 
pany, the predecessor in title of the Canadian National Railways. 

The matter was dealt with by two orders of the Railway Committee of the 
Privy Council. One of these was dated September 5, 1901; the second was 
dated September 26, 1903. 

In view of the time which has elapsed since the original construction, the 
Board has to deal with the matter in terms of the specific orders concerned It 
is to be presumed that on account of the length of time that elapsed in each 
case before an order was finally issued the committee had before it the full 
record of all matters involved. Aside from the orders themselves, all that was 
handed over to this Board in the records of the Railway Committee in the matter 
in question was an incomplete file of letters. In a very considerable number of 
cases, there are the answers of the parties interested to letters which had gone 
out from the Railway Committee, copies of which original letters are not on file. 

The question, then, before the Board is: What did the orders provide, and 
what action, if any, following therefrom is to be taken by the Board? After 
the lapse of some twenty years and the passing of many who were actively 
interested in the matter, the Board, on the record before it, cannot contemplate 
a reopening of the matter. 

The order of September 5, 1901, recites that the Grand Trunk Railway- 
Company had applied to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council for an 
order approving of certain works and changes on its line of railway at or near 
the town of Trenton, in the townships of Murray and Sydney; the said works 
to be undertaken for the purpose of reducing the grades and otherwise benefiting 
the said line of railway. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 77 

Included in the application was the authorization of the deviation of the 
Frankford and Percy roads from points a short distance north of the said line 
of railway to the road known as the Murray road ; the construction of the high- 
ways necessary for such purpose; the erection of an overhead bridge for the 
purpose of carrying the railway over and across the said Murray road ; and the 
closing of the said Percy road and Frankford road where the same cross the 
line of the railway. 

The matter was heard by the committee before representatives of the Grand 
Trunk Railway Company, the town of Trenton, the township of Murray, and a 
representative for the Central Ontario P^ailway Company. The works above 
outlined were sanctioned, including " the deviation of the said Percy and Frank- 
ford roads by the new highways constructed to connect the same with the 
Murray road at points thereon north of the overhead bridge erected for the pur- 
pose of carrying the railway over the said road and of the said overhead bridge 
as erected." 

It further ordered that the said Percy and Frankford roads " be, and they 
are hereby, declared closed where the same respectively cross the line of the 
company's railway." 

The plan attached to the order shows on the north side of the track begin- 
ning at a point east of the Central Ontario tracks, a road which is marked 
between this point and Trenton street on the plan as being the new road from 
Wooler to Trenton, and from Trenton street east the new road from Frankford 
to Trenton. Hitherto, there had been a continuation south of the tracks of the 
Percy road under various names. It is shown as continuing easterly as Percy 
road to where it joins Murray street east of the Central Ontario tracks, then 
running northeasterly it becomes Frankford street. Frankford street continues 
in a northeasterly direction crossing the Grand Trunk tracks. The easterly 
extension of the new road from Frankford to Trenton intersects the old Frank- 
ford street a short distance northeast of the point where the old Frankford 
street crosses the line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That is to say, 
instead of having a road dipping south crossing the Grand Trunk, the Central 
Ontario, the Gilmour Company's spur, and the Grand Trunk again, there is 
substituted at the north a road, as above indicated, with a length of approxi- 
mately 3,240 feet. 

The order of the Railway Committee directed a deviation of the Percy road 
southeasterly and easterly to the limit of the town of Trenton, and provided 
that the Grand Trunk and the Central Ontario were to share in terms specified 
in the cost of the acquisition of the land and of the construction; the muni- 
cipality of the town of Trenton to be under the obligation of acquiring the 
necessary land, and of constructing a portion of the highway within their cor- 
porate limits. It was specifically provided in regard to the southerly deviation 
of the Percy road that it was to be "constructed in all respects to the satisfaction 
of the Government Chief Engineer of Railways and Canals." 

Then follows the paragraph: — 

"And the committee further orders and directs that the said high- 
ways already constructed, as well as the new highway hereby ordered, 
shall, upon being constructed be assumed and maintained by and at the 
expense of the municipality in which the same or the several portions 
thereof may be respectively situated." 

It appears, then: — 

(1) That so far as the road to the north of the station isi concerned, the 
order of the committee was invoked, at least in part, for the validation of the 
work which had already been done. 

(2) So far as the record is concerned, the deviation southeasterly of Percy 
road is something new and distinct from the original application. 



78 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

(3) It was specifically set out that the southerly deviation of Percy road 
was to be constructed in all respects to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer 
of Railways and Canals. 

(4) In regard to the other roads, including the road to the north of the 
Grand Trunk station, no such provision is set out. 

(5) Both the southerly deviation of the Percy road and the other roads 
concerned, including the road to the north, were, upon being constructed, to 
be assumed and maintained by and at the expense of the municipality con- 
cerned. 

There was on file prior to the issuance of the order in question an exten- 
sively signed petition dealing with the matter herein involved. The petition 
is not dated but it was directed to the Railway Committee setting out various 
matters to which it was desired attention should be paid. It was set out that 
the Murray and Trenton gravelled road leading from Trenton to Wooler, Wark- 
worth, Hastings, Campbellford, and other places, was a macadamized road and 
had been used as a public highway for many years before the Grand Trunk 
was built. Reference was made to the volume of traffic and to the fact that 
until recently there had been a level crossing over the Grand Trunk tracks, It 
was set out that a new road had been built affording a route different from what 
had formerly been available over the crossing in question. This road is spoken 
of as " running about parallel to the railway tracks and quite close to same." 
From the maps on file, this is the new road to the north of the tracks. 

Paragraph 6 of the petition is, in view of what is later developed, significant 
and may be quoted in full: — 

"By using this new piece of road and entering the town of Trenton 
by this other crossing referred to, the distance is increased. A portion 
of the said original road has become now entirely useless for general 
travel, and the new piece of road that has been substituted is about two 
and a half times the length of the piece of the original road so made 
useless." 

Reference has been made to the order of 1901. There is on file dated 
November 4, 1901, a letter from Mr. J. B. McColl, of Cobourg, Ont., solicitor 
for the township of Murray. This letter is addressed to the Clerk of the Rail- 
way Committee of the Privy Council, and states that draft order and plan had 
been forwarded to him by the reeve of the township of Murray. It continues: — 

"The order seems to be all right, except that I think a provision 
should be included to the effect that the work should be proceeded with 
immediately after the order is issued." 

The order dated September 5, 1901, was formally issued under date of 
December 19, 1901. 

Subsequent to the order of 1901, further discussion took place, concerned 
for the most part with matters arising between the Grand Trunk and the Cen- 
tral Ontario Railway Companies in regard to the participation in cost, of a 
portion of the work, by the Central Ontario Railway Company. There were 
also some matters involving the construction of the southeasterly deviation of 
the Percy road in so far as it affected various individuals. 

Following this, on direction of the Department of Railways and Canals, 
there was a report made by Mr. E. V. Johnson, engineer of the department. The 
report is dated June 26, 1902. What was concerned here was the question of 
the southerly deviation of the Percy road, which is not material to the present 
application. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 79 

Subsequently, under date of October 23, 1902, a letter was received from 
Messrs. Clute & Morden of Belleville, Ont,, who were now acting as solicitors 
for the township of Murray and who stated that — 

" Our clients are extremely anxious that the work ordered by the 
committee to be done should be proceeded with as soon as possible, as 
they and the general public have been seriously damaged and inconveni- 
enced by the delay in carrying out the terms of the order. More than a 
year has elapsed since it was made and no steps whatever have been 
taken by any of the parties to carry out the provisions of the order." 

Again, under date of May 27, 1903, Mr. Clute wrote to the Secretary of 
the Railway Committee stating — 

" Our clients, the township of Murray, have written asking when the 
matter will come up and urging that it be disposed of as soon as possible." 

In a letter of July 9, 1903, addressed to the Secretary of the Railway Com- 
mittee, Mr. Clute, referring to this matter, said: — 

" After the last meeting of the Railway Committee when this matter 
was arranged, all the parties, as you were no doubt advised, met on the 
ground and so far as the Grand Trunk Railway and the township of 
Murray is concerned, signed a memorandum that was satisfactory." 

The letter continued saying that the township was exceedingly anxious to get 
the roads in shape before the fall. There is nothing contained in the letter 
which more definitely ear-marks the date when the parties agreed. 

The crder of September 26, 1903, varies from the order of 1901 in so far as 
details of the deviation, of Percy road to the south are concerned. The status of 
the road to the north is not affected. 

Under date of June 24, 1904, the Secretary of the Railway Committee was 
written to by the Clerk of the Township of Murray stating that the township 
desired to be represented when an inspection was made. They claimed there 
were matters outstanding in regard to drainage. The order of September 26, 
1903, had directed the Grand Trunk, as far as reasonably practicable, to divert 
the water which would 

" naturally pass through the culvert or subway intended to be used for 
the purpose of a highway to the culvert to the west, so as to reduce the 
quantity flowing through the said subway." 

This dealt with the subway through which the deviation of the Percy road to 
the south passed. The municipality stated that this deviation of water had not 
been properly arranged for; and it was also stated that the culvert under the 
bridge through the Grand Trunk subway and the culvert some 40 rods south 
of the Grand Trunk across the new road were both too small to carry all 
the flow of water at certain seasons of the year. They, therefore, desired to be 
represented when an inspection was made in this regard. They further stated 
that the gravel used on the new road was too coarse, full of large stones, and 
should be covered with a cover of finer gravel. 

Following this, on request, a report was made by Mr. E. V. Johnson, said 
report being dated July 20, 1904. After discussing the question of drainage and 
making certain sundry suggestions, he stated it would require an observation 
of the action of the water during the freshets to form a proper judgment as to 
what the drainage requirements might be. 

In regard to the road, the letter of the municipality speaks of " the new 
road." In some cases in the correspondence on file, " new road " appears to be 
identified with the Percy road deviation to the south, but apparently the munici- 
pality intended " new road " to refer to the roadway to the north or to the 



80 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

south. Ai any rate, the Engineer so read it; and he stated that the roads were 
well constructed, with a good bed of gravel on the surface. He said there were 
places where boulders appeared on the surface and he expressed the opinion 
that the large stones lying on the road should be either broken up or covered 
with finer gravel 

It may be noted that the letter on file of the Chief Engineer of the Depart- 
ment of Railways and Canals dated July 26, 1904, in forwarding a copy of Mr. 
Johnson's report to this Board, shows that he regarded the new road as cover- 
ing the new highways. 

In 1905. an inspection during the freshest season was made by the Chief 
Engineer of the Board, who stated that he had looked into the question of 
flooding "' of the subway under the tracks of the Grand Trunk Railway on what 
is known as the New road." He pointed out that in the spring freshets a heavy 
flow of water went through the subway from time to time. There had been a 
suggestion as to a dyke or dam. He suggested that a concrete road should be 
made. The railway undertook to make the changes in regard to drainage which 
were recommended. 

There has been some discussion as to whether or not there has been formal 
acceptance by the municipality of the deviation. On consideration, it seems 
to me that the letter of August 6, 1906, copy of which is on file from the solicitor 
of the township addressed to Mr. M. K. Cowan, of the Grand Trunk Railway 
Company, which reads as follows: — 

" I am now instructed by the township to inform you ' that the new 
council are satisfied with concrete job at subway Trenton and have no 
protest against Engineer accepting new road according to award of Rail- 
way Committee.' 

" I think this satisfactorily closes the matter." — 

refers to the southerly deviation of the Percy road; and it further indicates that 
there apparently was in the minds of those concerned some distinction which 
identified the southerly extension of the deviated road as the New road. 

From the period terminating in 1906, the essential features of whose 
records, so far as the file permits, have been summarized, the Board had nothing 
before it, until 1924, in any way affecting the highways at this point. 

Under date of April 21, 1924, the clerk of the township of Murray wrote 
the Board referring to the highway north of the Grand Trunk Railway station at 
Trenton Junction, setting out that the council claimed that the road had never 
been completed; that it was not the required width; that it had not been 
accepted by the council; that council had been given no deed of same; that no 
maintenance had been done by the council of Murray on this road; and that 
it was in very bad condition and had been so for three years. 

In a letter from Mr. Maybee, M.P. for the constituency concerned, it was 
stated that the road in question was of no real value to the township of 
Murray, it being used chiefly by the vehicles and taxis to and from the station, 
and that it would be used much more if put in good condition; that the town- 
ship had steadily refused to assume the said road or repair the same. If com- 
pelled to assume the said road, the township would have more than twice the 
road distance it had before the diversion. He also stated that the road was 
never properly constructed. 

An inspection was made by the Board. Taking up in order the points con- 
cerned: — 

(1) The construction of the road: The Engineer of the Department of 
Railways and Canals, in the inspection referred to, said the roads had been 
well constructed. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 81 

(2) The question of taking over by the municipality: As pointed out, it 
was provided that when the road was constructed, it was to be assumed and 
maintained by the municipality. 

As pointed out further, while the southerly deviation of Percy road was 
to be "constructed in all respects to the satisfaction of -the Government Chief 
Engineer of Railways and Canals," there was no such provision in the case 
of the road north of the Grand Trunk station. 

(3) The length of the road: It is complained to-day that the diverted 
portion of the road being longer than the original road between the points in 
question places an extra burden upon the municipality. As pointed out, this 
was emphasized in the petition filed prior to the issuance of the order of 1901, 
and notwithstanding this the order placed the burden of maintenance upon the 
municipality. 

(4) Question of maintenance: The municipality points out that no main- 
tenance has been done since the road was constructed. This emphasizes what 
is already referred to in the engineer's report, namely, that the roads are well 
constructed. 

The members of the Board walked over a portion of the road concerned 
and it was in a surprisingly good condition for a road on which no maintenance 
had been done for approximately twenty years. 

Considering the whole matter, the time which has elapsed since the date 
of original construction without application, in regard to the condition of the 
road, being launched, the statement of the engineer that the road was well con- 
structed, and a personal view of the situation on the ground, I am of opinion 
that no further action is necessary or justifiable by the Board, in regard to 
imposing any burden of cost for surfacing on the railway. 

I have in mind as well in saying this that the inspecting engineer did say 
that there were certain boulders which should be broken or covered with gravel. 
If no maintenance has been done, time seems to have settled this phase of 
the matter because the boulders in question were not apparent when we walked 
over the road 

Aside from the question of construction of the road, there are one or two 
matters of drainage concerned which were taken up with the engineer who was 
present. East of the station, there is a low swampy section, water from which 
seems to spread over on to the diverted road. This had already been the 
subject of inspection by the Board's Engineer, who stated that the ditch north 
of the railway, just east of the station, was not in condition to carry water away 
in the spring, and should be cleaned out and put in proper condition. This 
was inspected when the Board was on the ground, and apparently this had 
been taken care of. 

Af the first subway west of the station, it is necessary to have the ditch 
dleanedi outt. The ditch blocks up and apparently water runs out on the 
diverted road. Mr. Frith, the railway engineer, stated that he would look 
after this. 

In regard to the southerly deviation of the Percy road which has been 
referred to, there is, as has been pointed out, a subway with a concrete floor. 
The ditch is under this. It was claimed by the municipality that this blocked 
up from time to time and that the road was at times impassable. This appears 
to be in part due to the ordinary water of the lands, that is, drainage, and 
also, in part, to water being released from mill-dams to the north. There .is 
a culvert still farther west which takes care of a good part of the water. 

In regard to the culvert and the water flowing under the concrete flooring 
referred to, it seemed from the inspection made that there were some cross- 
timbers under the concrete flooring which interfered with the flow. The engineer 
stated that he would look into this. 

25486— 6 



82 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

APPLICATION OTTAWA ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY TO REVISE FARES 

Judgment Assistant Chief Commissioner, Jane 5, 1925, concurred in by the 
Chief Commissioner and Mr. Commissioners Boyce and Oliver. 

The decision of the Board of April 19, 1920, provided, in so far as the 
particular fares are material to the present situation, for a fare between Hol- 
land avenue and Britannia Park of 5 cents cash, and during the hours of 6 to 
7.30 a.m., and 5 to 6.30 p.m., eight tickets for a quarter. The latter were so- 
called " workingmen's tickets." These tickets hereinafter are called " yellow 
tickets." It is alleged that within the hours limited these tickets are of gen- 
eral use and not limited in use to workingmen. This is natural. 

Application is made for revision of the fares within the territory covered 
by the judgment of 1920 in respect of (a) the territory, (b) the yellow tickets. 

It is proposed to have one zone extending from Granville avenue, the 
westerly limit of the city, to McKellar Townsite, hereinafter called Zone A; 
and a second from McKellar Townsite to Britannia, hereinafter called Zone 
B. It is proposed to take out the yellow tickets in the zone from the city 
limits to McKellar, and to provide within that zone for a rate of ten-tickets- 
for-a-quarter, not limited as to any particular period of the day during which 
cars are operated. This will leave the 5-cent cash fare for the individual trip 
untouched, and substitute not only for the period now covered by the yellow 
tickets but also for the rest of the working-day a fare of 2\ cents. It is pro- 
posed that in the zone from McKellar to Britannia, Zone B, the yellow tickets 
shall be removed, no reduced fare being substituted therefor so far as travelling 
easterly to the city limits is concerned. That is to say, the 5-cent cash fare 
would apply on this movement. 

Within the limits of Zone B, provision is proposed to be made for ten 
tickets for a quarter. This would enable an individual buying ten tickets for 
a quarter to travel within either zone for 2\ cents. If he desires to travel from 
one zone to another zone, the result would be that he would pay 5 cents. 

While there is a certain amount of traffic originating and ending on the 
Britannia line, the Board has never had before it any figures setting out in a 
satisfactory conclusive manner just what this traffic amounts to. Under what 
is proposed, this traffic local to the Britannia line will be treated as inter-zone 
traffic. The impression left by such evidence as has been before the Board 
in previous cases is that the inter-zone traffic is not important in amount. In 
the presentation made before the Board in this and in other cases, what was 
emphasized was the question of the fare from a point on the Britannia line to 
the city. 

It is a matter of knowledge that there has been a very considerable resi- 
dential development west of the westerly limits of the city of Ottawa. Where, 
at one time, the traffic was to a great extent concerned with that of residents 
in summer cottages, there has more recently been an increase in the number 
of those living all the year round in the territory west of the city limits and 
east of Britannia. Consequently, it is a question of travel to and from the 
city of Ottawa which is important. 

The proposition to decrease the rate from eight-for-a-quarter to 2^ cents 
per ticket means a reduction of five-eighths of a cent. On the other hand, in 
Zone B it means an increase of If cents over the yellow ticket rate. 

Other applications which the Board has had before it have been predicated 
on the basis that the Britannia line was not making an adequate return. When 
the matter was before the Board in 1919, the then Chief Commissioner, Sir 
Henry L. Drayton, held that if the Britannia line had been dealt with separ- 
ately it was clearly established that its returns were inadequate. The Supreme 
Court, in its answers to the stated case which was submitted to it, stated in 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 83 

substance, inter alia, that the section of line west from Holland avenue had to 
be looked at separately from the city system. 

Following this, provision for increase of fares was made by the Ottawa 
Electric Company, which filed a tariff outlining the proposed increases. This 
was dealt with in the judgment of 1920, in which the late Chief Commissioner 
Carvell authorized an increase. In the 1920 decision, the matter was dealt with 
as one involving a necessary increase of revenue for the Ottawa Electric Railway 
Company. 

When the tariff herein concerned was filed, communications were received 
from various interested parties. A letter dated March 10, 1925, was received 
from the Clerk of Nepean intimating that the township council might wish 
to be represented. Under date of March 21, there was forwarded to the Board 
a resolution from the Trustees of the Police Village of Westboro which reads 
as follows: — 

" Resolved: 

" That this Incorporated Board of Trustees of the Police Village of 
Westboro place themselves on record as being in accord with the pro- 
posed tariff submitted by the Ottawa Electric Railway to the Board of 
Railway Commissioners, in so far as the tariff applies to the zone east 
of McKellar, and further do express our appreciation for their having 
taken this matter under consideration to the relief of the thousands of 
people residing within this area." 

In the covering letter, it was alleged that the large majority of the people 
on the Britania extension reside east of McKellar. It was stated that at least 
5,000 reside within one mile of the present city limits; and it was set out that 
the proposed adjustment of the tariff by the Ottawa Electric Railway was 
" more than welcomed by us." 

Under date of March 24, council for the township of Nepean filed objec- 
tions to the increase. Under date of March 31, there was forwarded to the 
Board a letter from Mr. H. L. Carson, Secretary of the McKellar Citizens' 
Association, enclosing resolution in favour of the reduced fare proposed by 
the railway. The residents west of McKellar filed by counsel, under date of 
April 1, objection to the proposed arrangement, taking the position that there 
was no valid reason for the change from the tariff, or for the zoning proposed. 

It is to be noted that the present application is not predicated on the con- 
tention that the revenues of this section of the line are inadequate and that, 
therefore, there should be an increase in rates. What is put forward is that 
on the basis of the traffic analysis which has been made, the company is of 
opinion that it is justifiable to divide the territory involved into two zones; 
and that it is, further, justifiable, having in mind the question of developing 
traffic, to give a reduced fare basis to Zone A as has been outlined. 

It was stated by the railway that, — 

" At the instance of the people living in Zone A we have been 
repeatedly asked to do something about the fares out there, and we did 
think they were being charged a little too much because of their closeness 
to the city; but so long as the line is considered as one zone it will be 
difficult to make anv change." Evidence Mr. Burpee, pp. 529, 530, Vol. 

Again, it is stated that the rate is looked to as one which will develop traffic. 

'*' We hope that the lower fares between McKellar, Highland Park, 
and Westboro, the most densely populated, will induce a great many 
people to ride and take the through fare to the city, instead of, as many 
of them do now, riding in other people's automobiles and so on." (Ibid. 
p. 372.) 

2.5486— 61 



84 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Counsel for Zone A contended that the existing system was unfair, and he 
instanced the people living at Hilson avenue and Ottawa West, both sections 
Icing located west of the city boundary but adjacent thereto. Hilson avenue 

said to be from 300 to 400 yards west and Ottawa West 150 yards from the 
city boundary. 

It was set out that if the residents of these places desire to travel to and 
from the city, they have to pay for the short journey the fare which would at 
present take them the full journey to or from Britannia. The same situation, 
it was contended, applied to the vast majority of people living along the line, 

:boro being specially referred to. 

A period of approximately two weeks elapsed between the first and second 
hearing in the present application. It was contended by counsel that it was only 
owing to the energetic efforts of those whom he represented that the matter had 
been gone on with. 

At the same time, the railway contends, in substance, that there are not the 
same conditions existing in Zone B as in Zone A and that it is justifiable to 
eliminate the yellow tickets. 

The question, then, as presented involves — 

(a) the proposition to rearrange the zone territory, substituting two zones 

for the existing one; 
(£>) the question whether or not in the rearrangement of zones and rates it 

is or is not acting in a way which is unjustly discriminatory or unduly 

preferential. 

Discussion took place at the hearing on the point whether there was a 
burden of proof on the railway in respect of the increase from the yellow tickets 
to a 5-cent cash fare. The eight-for-a-quarter rate is a special rate, and the 
conditions under which it was put in on the railway requires some further dis- 
cussion. 

The situation in regard to the burden of proof where rates are increased is 
that, in general, the one contesting an increase rate has to make a prima facie 
case as to the reasonableness; thereafter, the onus is shifted to the railway. 

In the amendment to the Railway Act of 1919, section 331, subsection 3, 
dealing with " Special freight tariff advances ", was amended by the proviso — 

" That where objection to any such tariff is filed with the Board, the 
burden of proof justifying the proposed advances shall be upon the com- 
pany filing such tariff." 

This provision which placed the full burden of justification on the railway with- 
out any prima facie showing of. unreasonableness upon the part of the individuals 
adversely affected, is concerned with freight rates alone; and it is apparent, 
therefore, under the ordinary rule of construction, that the explicit burden so 
placed in respect of freight rate increase not being tied up in any other section 
of the Act with a similar burden in respect of passenger rates, the passenger 
rates are left in the position that there must be a prima facie showing of 
unreasonableness before the onus is changed. 

Except in so far as discrimination is concerned, it cannot be said that the 
matter has been attacked from the standpoint of the railway not having met 
the burden of any legal onus placed upon it. 

In dealing with the traffic moving, an analysis was made which was filed as 
exhibit No. 6. This covers a period of seventy-two days from January 13 to 
March 31, 1925. The figures show passengers carried between Ottawa and 
McKellar as 70 per cent of the total. An exhibit which was filed in connection 
with the 1918 hearing and which was based on the period September 6, 1918, to 
October 15, 1918, shows, when analyzed, 63 per cent, both east and west, as 
being between Holland avenue and McKellar. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 85 

The total traffic in the seventy-two days above referred to between Ottawa 
and McKellar shows 185,876 J and" between Ottawa and Britannia Park 81,027; 
or a total of 266,903-V. The figure of one-half is due to the fact that conductors 
were instructed to consider children as half fares, in order to simplify their work. 
The passengers carried between Ottawa and McKellar, in the test period, were 
70 per cent of the passengers on the Britannia line. During this period there 
were 39,471 yellow tickets used. Distributing these on the same percentage 
basis as the total traffic, 70 per cent, or 27,630, are checked against Zone A 
traffic, while the balance, or 11,841, are checked against Zone B. On this basis, 
14.8 per cent of the Zone A travellers travelled on yellow tickets, while of those 
with a Zone B destination or origin 14.6 per cent moved on yellow tickets. Of 
the total traffic moving in Zones A and B, 14.8 per cent is checked against the 
yellow tickets. 

There was some discussion as to whether the figures for the seventy -two . 
days in question were characteristic. One very patent criticism which, however, 
requires further analysis, is that these traffic returns were made in the winter 
season when the movement might be expected to be light. Although statements 
have been put in at other times showing the total number of people moving in 
longer periods, it is difficult to get this on a comparative basis. It is admitted 
both by counsel for the railway and by counsel for Zone B that conditions have 
so changed as to render it difficult, if not impossible, to get a common basis 
of comparison. The development of improved highways and the expansion in 
motor traffic have admittedly brought about a change for which there is not a 
common denominator as between present and past conditions. 

It is, indeed, a fair argument that detailed figures for the year would, no 
doubt, show a higher curve of travel in the summer than in the period which 
has been chosen; but this does not go to the question of what its effect would 
be on the yellow-ticket travellers. Summer travel may mean either ordinary 
outing or picnicing travel, or it may mean people taking summer cottages for 
the summer season. It is suggested that a true measure of demand for the yellow 
tickets is to be found in the residential settlement the year round, and not in 
such addition to traffic as may be made during the summer months. The summer 
traffic, it would appear, would to a greater extent than the residential traffic 
find it convenient to travel at hours not covered by the yellow tickets. 

In regard to the travel, those who are resident on the line and working in 
offices in the city may at present use the workingmen's tickets on the trip east- 
ward and westward. It is improbable, however, that any large number of office 
workers make use of the tickets in the earlier morning hours to come into the 
city. In the case of summer traffic, there is a further consideration in regard to 
westbound traffic. In so far at least as a part of the summer is concerned, civil 
servants spending the summer in their cottages on the Britannia line have the 
advantage of the four o'clock hours in the afternoon; and it is not to be expected 
that under such conditions many people will wait around until the hour when the 
yellow tickets are effective. 

On the whole, then, while the figures given on the seventy-two-days' com- 
putation may not afford an exact measure of the total traffic moving in the 
summer, it would seem to be fair to conclude that they afford a reasonably fair 
measure of the yellow ticket traffic which will be affected by the change. 

In dealing with electric radial lines, the Board has fixed standard passenger 
fares now standing at 2-875 cents per mile. In the judgment by ex-Chief Com- 
missioner Drayton in 1919, the Ottawa Electric Railway Company was spoken 
of as not being a radial line, but as being in reality an urban system with 
feeders. In the same judgment, it was held that the situation arising in this 
connection presented conditions so different from those which had been con- 
sidered in other judgments of the Board as to render the Ottawa Electric Rail- 
way situation readily distinguishable; and reference was made to the fact that 



86 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

the Ottawa Electric Railway Company applied a flat rate to all using its facili- 
ties and without regard to the actual value of the service rendered, for which 
8 particular fare was paid; and it was urged that the system should be looked 
at as a whole. 

In answer to the questions submitted to it, the Supreme Court held inter 
alia that the Board had not the right to treat the company's operations as a 
whole and continue the existing tariff. It was further held that for the purpose 
of computing the toll to be charged to passengers upon the Britannia section 
the point of commencement of the said extension should be considered to be at 
Holland avenue. 

The effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was recognized in tariffs 
which were thereafter filed by the railway, which came before the Board in 
1920 for Judgment. 

_ In the judgment of 1919, it was held that the City rates could not! be 
revised downwards. This was. because of an existing agreement which had 
been ratified by Parliament. The judgment of the late Chief Commissioner 
Carvell pointed out that the part of line from Holland avenue west was not 
subject to agreement. 

In the application following the decision of the Supreme Court, the street 
railway company proposed to eliminate the yellow tickets, and also to sub- 
divide the zone between the western boundary of the City and Britannia in the 
same way as is at present proposed. 

It is now argued by counsel for Zone B that the subdivided zone system 
as proposed is. not in accordance with the scheme of the Ottawa, Electric Rail- 
way Company, the scheme being one of a general flat rate of 5 cents. 

The late Chief Commissioner Carvell in his judgment of April 19, 1920, gave 
a direction in regard to the yellow tickets being used on the Britannia, line. 
The wording of the judgment is significant: — 

". . . . I think it not unreasonable that the same conditions should 
prevail as to the workmen's tickets .... on the extensions: as prevail 
on the rest of the system, and I, therefore, find that the fare to workmen 
from any point between Britannia and Holland avenue from the first 
morning trip until 7.30 a.m., and between 5 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., shall be 
thirty -three tickets for $1, or eight for a quarter." 

It would appear from the wording of the extract above given — note the 
words ''same conditions should prevail .... on the extensions asi prevail on the 
rest of the system . . . . " that it was the existence of the arrangement on the 
rest of the system which had weight with the late Chief Commissioner. 

In the agreement of January 25, 1924, confirmed by 14-15, George V, 
Chapter 84, the yellow tickets were left out of the said agreement, and whatever 
argument there might be based on the use of these tickets in the city, although 
under agreement, as a criterion of rates to be applied elsewhere would seem 
to me to vanish. 

Details as to the traffic during the test period of seventy-two days have 
been given. There is in that period an average number of passengers per day 
amounting to 3,707; an average in Zone A of 2,582, in Zone B of 1,125; and 
contained within this average is the average of passengers per 1 day using the 
limited tickets amounting to 384 in Zone A and to 164 in Zone B. The per- 
centage is arrived at by alloting^to Zone A, for example, the same percentage 
of yellow ticket fares as it has of total fares. The railway computes on the 
164 tickets in Zone B the difference between 5 cents and 3^ cents would amount 
to 1.875 cents, or $3.07 per day. 

The figures when analyzed show that there was a limited use of these 
tickets on Sunday amounting to 299 all told, and that in the case of Saturdays 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 87 

the average use was much less, than on other week days.. The number varies 
from 287 to 496, with an average of 369 per day. As, however, the detail of 
the subdivision of this difference between the two zones is not available, further 
analysis is unnecessary. 

Applying the average of $3.07 per day to the annual travel, this would 
amount, on a year so extended, to $1,123 of an increase. This is subject to the 
criticism already referred to in respect of the period in question not being 
characteristic. On the other hand, the rearrangements of fare proposed in 
Zone A would, on the figures submitted for the test period, work out a decrease 
in revenue per day of $57.33. Extending this for a yearly period would give a 
figure of $20,925. On this computation, on the traffic figures of the test period, 
there would in one year be a reduction of $19,802 on the traffic earnings of the 
two zones. 

One of the questions submitted to the Supreme Court was: — 

" or must the Board permit the filing of tariffs on a mileage basis 
covering services on the Britannia Line without reference to the larger 
part of the system covered by municipal agreement?" 

The Supreme Court answered: " Yes, though not necessarily on a mileage basis." 

As a test of what the rates may mean, I think a mileage basis may be 
referred to. The fact that there are fiat rates in the city of Ottawa, under 
agreement, does not seem to me to make this a conclusive measure; and it is 
further to be noted that it is specifically set out that the rates so contained in 
the agreement cannot be subject to the revision of the Board until at least a 
period of five years has elapsed. See clause 4, sub-clause (b) and clause 9, 
sub-clause (6). 

The Supreme Court dealt with the Britannia line as beginning at Holland 
avenue. The fares set out in clause 4, sub-clause (a) of the existing agreement 
are by clause 4, sub-clause (c) to be applicable inter alia " on the company's 
transportation system now or hereafter constructed or operated within the 
present limits of the city." 

Under the agreement, as limited, the jurisdiction of the Board begins for 
the purposes of the present application at the westerly city limits. 

From Holland avenue to McKellar is 2.02 miles; from McKellar to Brit- 
annia is 2.24 miles; giving a total mileage of 4.26 miles. Included in this, 
however, is the section between Holland avenue and Granville avenue, at the 
westerly limits of the city, a distance of 2,000 feet, or approximately .39 of a 
mile. This leaves a distance of 3.87 miles over which the Board has juris- 
diction. 

It was urged very strongly by counsel for Zone A, which was supporting 
the proposition of the railway, that hitherto Zone A, while closer to the city, 
had paid a higher proportionate rate than Britannia, On the basis of eight-for-a- 
quarter tickets and on the mileage of 2.02 from Holland avenue, McKellar was 
paying 1.54 cents per mile, while Britannia was paying .733 cents per mile. 
While the yellow tickets have been spoken of throughout as being eight- for- 
a-quarter, they are also sold at 33 for $1, or a rate of 3.03 cents per ticket. 
On this basis, the mileage of 2.02 miles up to McKellar would pay 1.50 cents 
per mile, while to Britannia it was .711 cents per mile. 

In computing the rate charged under the proposed arrangement, the Board 
must recognize, for the reasons mentioned, the territory coming within its powers 
at present as being Zone A, amounting to 2.02 miles, minus .39, or 1.69 miles, 
and Zone B amounting to 2.24 miles — a total of 3.87 miles. 

Zone A, at a rate of 2h cents for 1.63 miles, has a charge of 1.53 cents per 
mile. Zone B, for a total mileage of 3.87 miles, pays 5 cents, which amounts 
to 1.29 cents per mile. 



88 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

In an exhibit No. 8 prepared by Mr. MeRae, the assessor, Zone A is 
shown with a population of 5,322; and there are in addition 100 summer homes, 
Zone B is shown with a population of 1,217, and there are in addition 320 
summer homes. 

The application of a single zone rate to the territory west of the city limits 
has grown up, as pointed out, through custom and not through any burden 
imposed by the Railway Act. The general basis of passenger rates under the 
Railway Act is that of mileage. At the same time, the Board, and other regula- 
tive tribunals, has recognized that zone fares of tolls may be charged, subject 
to the condition that they shall not be discriminatory. 

As already indicated, the rate which it is proposed to install is one which 
it is hoped will develop traffic. The Board has held that a railway, subject to 
inhibitions as to unjust discrimination, may give a reduced rate basis to develop 
traffic. 

Application of District Board of Trade, Coalhurst, Alta., File 24470. 
Board's Judgments and Orders, Vol. XIII, 259, at p. 260. 

What is involved in the present application falls, in respect of the limited 
type of tickets concerned, within the category of commutation rates; and the 
principles applicable to the consideration of allegations of discrimination in 
connection with commutation rates in general are equally applicable in the 
case of the yellow tickets herein involved. Difference in the treatment of 
different places is not necessarily unjust discrimination, and in the absence of 
affirmative evidence of actual discrimination, resulting in the positive detri- 
ment to a place to which such tolls are refused, the Board will not interfere. 

Massdah vs. C.P.R., 17 Can. Ry. Cas., 88. 

City of Toronto and Town of Brampton vs. G.T.R. and C.P.R., 11 Can. 
Ry. Cas., 370. 

Wegenast vs. G.T.R. Co., 8 Can. Ry. Cas., 42. 

It would appear to me that when, as pointed out, the railway is not pre- 
vented from establishing its rates on the mileage basis, although it may from 
the standpoint of public convenience, density of traffic, etc., establish them on 
a zone basis, and when it exercises, or endeavours to exercise, this discretion in 
regard to re-zoning, there is also the burden on those opposing the change to 
show in what way the rate reacts to their detriment. 

While one witness for Zone B alleged that the proposed rearrangement 
would be detrimental to that zone, he gave no conclusive evidence justifying us 
in arriving at the conclusion for which he contended. 

I am of the opinion that a prima facie case either of unreasonableness of 
rate or of discrimination against the railway has not been established. I am 
further of opinion that considering the analysis of traffic, the nature of travel, 
and the density of settlement, the rearrangement proposed by the railway is not 
an unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory one and that it should be allowed. 

In regard to yellow tickets still outstanding, I am of the opinion that the 
same provision should prevail as is set out in Order No. 34748 of February 13, 
1924, namely, that said tickets shall be redeemed by the applicant company 
at their original cost, on presentation at its offices, 248 Albert street, in the 
city of Ottawa, or accepted by the conductors of its street cars, if presented 
singly, at a value of three cents each. 

APPLICATION OF THE TOWN OF INGERSOLL re INTERSWITCHING 

Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, April IS, 1925, concurred in by the 
Assistant Chief Commissioner and Mr. Commissioner Lawrence. Mr. 
Commissioner Oliver dissenting. 

This application for the establishment of a public interchange between the 
tracks of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways is a renewal, 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 89 

by permission of the Board, of a former application made to the Board for 
interchange between the same railways at the same point, in the same town, 
and which former application was heard by the Board at Hamilton, Ont., 
October 29, 1919, and on which application no order was made for the follow- 
ing reasons, stated at the close of the case, by the late Chief Commissioner, 
who presided: (Volume 313, pp. 9259-60). 

" It seems to me that until such time as either one of the railway 
companies owns this land, we have no jurisdiction to make an order 
against them . . . What I would suggest is that you take legal 
advice and when you are satisfied that you have a plan worked out, 
come back to the Board and we will listen to you." 

On May 30, 1923, the Corporation of the Town of Ingersoll renewed the 
application, alleging that the objection as to ownership of the land, just above 
referred to had been removed, and that, as they submitted, the Canadian 
National Railway had acquired the property in question, and that any order 
made in regard to interswitching would, under the changed conditions, cover 
property which was under the control of one or other of the railways concerned, 
and therefore, " subject to the order of the Board." The submissions of the 
two railway companies were then obtained upon this alleged changed 'situa- 
tion, and, amongst others, were submissions on behalf of the Canadian National 
Railways, under date January 17 and March 3, 1924, the former containing 
the statement: — 

" So that the Board will now have jurisdiction, we have arranged 
with the John Morrow Company for a lease of the necessary property 
at a rental of $100 a year for the purpose of constructing the inter- 
change track thereon, the lease to be executed upon the Board agreeing 
to the interchange being installed." 

And, in the latter submission, on behalf of the Canadian National of March 

3, 1924: 

" The facts are that the Canadian National track where the transfer 
is proposed is entirely the property of the railway. It is not a private 
spur, and the so-called Canadian Pacific Railway line is also a private 
spur, but on the contrary is the joint property of the two railways; the 
Canadian National having paid for one-half of the cost of its construc- 
tion." 

There was also submitted, in connection with these submissions as to 
changed conditions as to proprietorship, justifying the rehearing asked by the 
municipal corporation, and supported by the Canadian National Railways, 
a copy of the agreement, dated November 10, 1910, between the Canadian 
Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railways, as to the joint operation of the spur 
in question " for the purpose of reaching the premises of the Noxon Company, 
Limited." 

Upon these submissions the Board directed a rehearing, which took place 
at Ottawa, April 1, 1924, when the whole situation was fully discussed. 

By order of the Board, No. 14819, dated August 1, 1911, upon the applica- 
tion of the citizens, merchants and manufacturers of the town of Ingersoll, 
interchange of traffic between the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Rail- 
ways was ordered, such interchange being located north of the river Thames, 
and was built and operated. There was no interchange south of the river, 
and growth of industries in that part of the town it was said demonstrated that 
interchange was desirable south of the river because the connection made to 
the north of the river limited the interchange as regards Canadian Pacific Lines 
to the St. Mary's Division, while an interchange of traffic to the south of the 
river would permit of a general interchange of traffic on both lines. 



90 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The application heard by the Board in October, 1919, and on which no 
order was made for the reasons given, and now before the Board, as a rehear- 
ing, is. on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of the Town of Ingersoll, for 
an order to so connect the branches or spurs of the two railways where they 
come together on the property of the Noxon Company, south of the river in 
the manner proposed by the plan and indicated thereon, as to form a public 
interchange between the two railway companies. 

Prior to 1909 the Grand Trunk tracks did not serve the Noxon industry 
south of the river. The railway made an application, July 27, 1909, upon con- 
sent filed of the Noxon Company, submitted therewith — 

11 Authorizing the construction, maintenance, and operation of the 
siding and spur, and to connect the same with and operate this com- 
pany's engines and cars over two railway sidings belonging to the Noxon 
Company, shewn on the plan." 

This application was the expression of the desire of the Grand Trunk, as shewn 
in the proceedings, to build a spur from its line north of the river, across to 
the South to connect with and serve the private sidings (two) of the Noxon 
Company, then in existence and served by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The 
latter company vigorously opposed the application on the ground that the 
proposals of the Grand Trunk, as shewn on their plan, involved crossing one 
and connecting with another of the spurs of that Company serving the Noxon 
company's plant, and at a hearing, at Ottawa, on September 14, 1909, the 
application was dismissed with leave to renew it. 

Application was renewed, under date October 20, 1909, and by the letter 
accompanying the application, it is made quite clear, I think, that what the 
railway company was asking for was the approval of plans for " a spur into 
the premises of the Noxon Company, Ingersoll." 

The application being referred to the Chief Operating Officer of the Board, 
the application was by him approved, upon the condition that the railway 
companies concerned mutually arranged for the joint usage of that portion of 
the sidings of the Canadian Pacific leading to the Noxon Company building, 
and Order No. 8546 issued November 3, 1909, authorizing the construction, 
under sections 176 and 222 of the Railway Act, then in force, of a branch 
line, or siding, and a spur therefrom, according to plan filed, with the pro- 
vision that the portion of the proposed sidings of the Canadian Pacific leading 
to the Noxon Company be operated and maintained jointly by the two com- 
panies, under a mutual agreement, and that if no agreement was reached, terms 
to be settled by the Board. 

Under date December 3, 1909, the Board was advised by the Grand Trunk 
that the spur was now completed and was waiting inspection by the Board's 
Engineer, but upon reference to the Engineer of the Board, and with the sanc- 
tion of the Board, the solicitor of the Grand Trunk was advised, under date 
December 7, 1909, that it was not the practice of the Board to inspect spurs 
as they are not built for general traffic. 

It appears clear that the intention of the Grand Trunk in making both 
applications was to obtain switching facilities into the premises of the Noxon 
Company, and for that purpose they had to build from their main line across 
the river the tracks as shewn on the plan. In a letter of August 7, 1909, from 
the Grand Trunk, predecessors in title of the Canadian National Railways, on 
file, these tracks are referred to as being simply switching tracks and the whole 
tenor of the two applications with reference to them, as well as the plan, indi- 
cates that no matter under what sections of the Railway Act the connection 
was sought to be authorized, the intent was, to build a spur to connect the 
Noxon Company's spurs, then in existence and then served by the Canadian 
Pacific Railway, with the main line of the Grand Trunk north of the river. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 91 

The situation, as I view it, is, substantially, that which is referred to in 
the judgment of the Board in the case of Beverly Coal Mine and Humberstone 
Coal Cos. v. Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; 23 C.R.C. p. 64, at p. 69, 
and also dealt with in the cases therein referred to. 

Under date November 10, 1911, an agreement was entered into between the 
two railway companies, apparently as a basis of the joint operation, contem- 
plated by the last clause of Order No. 8546, just referred to, and which order is 
therein referred to. The agreement emphasizes, what was heretofore quite 
apparent, that the object of the Grand Trunk in building the branch, or spur, 
across the Thames river, as authorized by the last-mentioned order, was, as 
stated in the opening words of clause 1 of the agreement, " For the purpose of 
reaching the premises of the Noxon Company, Limited," etc. 

The agreement provides that, for such purpose — 

(a) The Canadian Pacific agrees to allow the Grand Trunk to use and 
operate, jointly with it, the portions of the sidings of the former com- 
pany which the latter company is by Order No. 8546 authorized to use 
and operate; 

(b) The Grand Trunk to pay the Canadian Pacific, on execution of the 
agreement, $1,640.41; being one-half of the cost incurred by the Cana- 
dian Pacific, in the construction of those portions of the joint track 
" situated upon the lands of the Noxon Company, Limited." 

(c) The Grand Trunk to pay semi-annually, interest at 5 per cent on 
$293.78; being one-half cost to Canadian Pacific Railway of construc- 
tion of those portions of the joint tracks, on the lands of the Canadian 
Pacific Railway, and also to pay monthly one-half of the entire cost 
and maintenance of the joint tracks; and 

(d) The Grand Trunk to instal, and maintain at its own expense, the 
diamond and switches necessary for the crossing of the Canadian 
Pacific Railway spur; cost of construction, maintenance, and opera- 
tion, of any signals, or protective appliances which might be required 
at the crossing, to be borne equally. 

The effect of this agreement, as I understand it, was to place the two com- 
panies upon an equal basis, as regards the joint use of the portions of the 
sidings leading to the Noxon Company, and which it was necessary for the 
Grand Trunk to use in order to secure access to that property, with its spur or 
branch line. I think the agreement went no further than that, and that there- 
after there was established, in pursuance of the order (No. 8546), a basis for 
the joint operation by the two railway companies of the spurs leading into and 
serving the Noxon Company. 

The application of the Grand Trunk, to the Board, for the permission 
granted by order No. 8546, became thereby perfected, and completed its efforts, 
as set forth, to reach the property of the Noxon Company, south of the river 
Thames, which was the only object it could have had in making the original 
application, to the Board. 

It is to be noted in the first clause (a) provision is made for joint opera- 
tion of the portion of the " sidings " of the Canadian Pacific, leading to the 
premises, and which " sidings " are shown on the yellow lines, on the plan; clause 
(b) provides for the payment, by the Grand Trunk, to the Canadian Pacific of 
the interest upon the investment of the latter, in the construction of the por- 
tions of the joint tracks, which are situate upon the lands of the Noxon Com- 
pany; and clause (c) is applicable to the payment of interest upon cost incurred 
by the Canadian Pacific in the construction of so much of the joint tracks as 
are on the lands of the Canadian Pacific. 



92 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Following the making of Order No. 8546, an application, dated December 
17. 1909. was made to the Board by citizens, merchants, and manufacturers of 
Ingersoll, for an interchange of traffic south of the river between the two rail- 
ways above referred to, and the proceedings show that the point of interchange 
was practically precisely the same as that now indicated; viz., by a junction of 
the tracks upon the lands of the Noxon Company, which were served jointly by 
the two railways under the provisions of Order No. 8546 and the agreement 
mentioned. This application was heard at Ingersoll May 31, 1910, and judg- 
ment was reserved in order that a joint report could be obtained from the Chief 
Engineer and Chief Operating Officer of the Board. These officers reported, 
January 16, 1911, after a careful examination into the conditions, with represen- 
tatives of the Noxon Company, the town of Ingersoll, and the two railways, 
that they found that the physical conditions at this point were such that it was 
impossible to locate interchange without having the same located on, and made 
over, private property. The Board delivered judgment January 20, 1911 — 
written by the then Chief Commissioner (Mabee) and concurred in by the other 
members of the Board who sat; and the application was dismissed for the 
reasons generally set forth in the report of the Board's officers above referred 
to. The judgment contains the following clause: — 

" In the letter from the solicitors for the applicants, which came to 
the Board, dated December 27, 1909, it contained the following state- 
ment: — ■ 

" The Grand Trunk having built a bridge to connect with the 

Noxon Company, are quite content to have it used in connection 

with the general scheme. " 

" The Board's officials report that the tracks leading to the Noxon 
Company form a connection between the Grand Trunk and Canadian 
Pacific tracks, and that traffic can be interchanged over these tracks 
with the permission of the Noxon Company, but that they will only per- 
mit the use of their tracks on payment of one dollar for each car inter- 
changed. Of course, if the tracks of the Noxon Company, located as they 
are upon private property, were used as facilities for transferring by 
other shippers, the Noxon Company should be compensated for such use. 
There is nothing to show that the applicants are willing to pay one dollar 
per car, or any other sum, for the use of the facilities of the Noxon Com- 
pany. Therefore it would seem unreasonable, if not impossible, to use 
the tracks of the Noxon Company as a medium of transfer." 

" The Board's officials further report that the physical conditions 
prevent satisfactory arrangements for interchange, and they suggest that 
the matter be delayed until a connection has been made between the 
Canadian Pacific line from Port Burwell through Ingersoll to Woodstock, 
and their line from Ingersoll to Code Junction." 

The application was dismissed and Order No. 12786, dated January 18, 
1911, was issued sc disposing of it. 

The next application was the application, heard at Hamilton, October 29, 
1919, which met with the fate indicated in the early part of this memorandum. 

With the history of the case, as above, the application came again before 
the Board, for rehearing, or reconsideration, of the decision of the late Chief 
Commissioner (Carvell) at the Hamilton sittings. 

The most pertinent query to be applied to the facts, as they are now pre- 
sented to us, upon the history above set out, would be as to how far the condi- 
tions have changed (a) since the decision of the Board of January 20, 1911; 
and (b) since the Hamilton decision of October 29, 1919. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 93 

The application for rehearing was based, as stated, upon the representation 
made by the Corporation of the Town of Ingersoll that the difficulty pointed 
out by the late Chief Commissioner, in disposing of the case, at Hamilton, as to 
ownership, had been overcome. The Canadian National Railways supported 
this representation in the manner above indicated. There is no suggestion that 
all these representations were not made in good faith. They undoubtedly were 
made, both by the applicant corporation and by the railway company, in its 
letters of January 17, and March 3, 1924, under the bona fide belief that condi- 
tions were just as represented. When counsel for the railway company ascer- 
tained, at the rehearing, that conditions were not as represented in those letters, 
and that the lease from the Morrow Company would not be made, counsel at 
once advised the Board, in writing, of the changed conditions. The fact, how- 
ever, that no change in ownership appeared at the rehearing from that which 
existed at the time of the Hamilton hearing and disposition, is an important 
factor to be considered in disposing of the renewed application, based upon the 
representations that such conditions had changed. It is shown that the owners 
of the land are not only not willing to lease the same, or such part thereof as 
may be necessary to the railway company for the purposes of the establishment 
of a public interchange, but that they object to the application being granted, 
and evidenced their objection by their letter to the Railway Company quoted, 
in Mr. Fraser's letter to the Board of April 3, 1924, by withdrawing their 
written offer to so lease, and stating, "the letter was, apparently, hastily written, 
and the John Morrow Company to-day would not be willing to lease on the 
terms therein stated." 

In a subsequent letter to the Board, dated November 12, 1924, from the 
solicitors of the owners, the objections are fully stated; the substance of which 
is that the owners object to the establishment of any public interchange on 
their property, and the use of their private tracks for that purpose, unless and 
until the property is acquired, in fee simple, from them, and compensation is 
made for all the land that would necessarily be used, or would be injuriously 
affected by the establishment and use of such a public interchange. 

The land on which the public interchange is sought to be established is 
subject to a, mortgage deed of trust to the National Trust Company to secure 
an issue of bonds to the amount of one million dollars, which mortgage is duly 
registered, and is a first charge upon the lands. The National Trust Company 
(mortgagees) which was not notified of the rehearing and was not represented 
thereat, strenuously objected to the interchange on the property, upon the 
following specific grounds, stated in its letter to the Board, dated November 
17, 1924:— 

1. "Interswitching over the present sidings would deprive the fac- 
tories now on the property of proper shipping facilities and we are 
advised that there is not room owing to the shape of the parcel of land 
for the construction of other sidings upon it." 

2. " The proposal is too indefinite. We should not be asked to con- 
sent to an indefinite proposal regarding interswitching. A plan should be 
submitted indicating exactly the amount of land required and in that 
way shipping privileges for the factories on the mortgaged premises could 
be maintained unhampered." 

3. " The proposed interswitching will very materially lessen the value 
of our security upon the property. Should it fall back on our hands 
as mortgagees, it would leave a great deal of the land absolutely value- 
less." 

The objections of the National Trust Company, as shewn in the above 
letter, were communicated to the railway companies. 



94 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The applicants, during, the rehearing, and when confronted with the evident 
recession of the owners from their original proposal to lease the land to the 
Canadian National, for the purpose of an interchange, relied upon a lease, dated 
December 23, 1918, from the John Morrow Screw and Nut Company, to the 
Corporation of the Town of Ingersoll, of the lands in question, upon which, or 
a portion of which, the interchange is sought to be established for a period of 
ten years from January 1, 1919, upon the terms and conditions in the said 
lease stated. 

The lease recites that the corporation desires to lease the lands, premises 
and property, therein described, for the purpose of promoting the establishment 
of industries thereon. The corporation, by clause 6, is given power to sublet 
on such terms and conditions as may seem proper, but it is provided (clause 6) 
that each sub-lease made by the corporation shall provide that no business shall 
be carried on the lands leased which shall be deemed a nuisance to the Ingersoll 
File Company, Limited, or to any sub-lessee of the said lands. The John 
Morrow Company appear to be the successors in title of the Noxon Company, 
but subject to the terms of the bond mortgage. 

I cannot see although it was strenuously and ingeniously argued that the 
lease referred to clothed the applicant corporation with necessary powers in 
dealing with the land, that it establishes such a title in the land, as I think is 
desirable in contemplating the establishment of a public interchange for the 
following reasons: — 

(1) The lease is for a period of ten years from February 1, 1919, and 
therefore has less than four years to run, and does not, in its terms, give the 
lessees the right to establish a public interchange upon the land. 

(2) The Morrow Company, since the date of the lease to the Corporation, 
has emphatically emphasized its disapproval of the establishment of any such 
interchange, under such lease, or otherwise, except upon the terms which they 
specify, viz.: the acquisition of the fee simple of such quantum of the property 
as may be necessary for the establishment of the interchange, which would 
involve the acquisition of several acres of their land. 

This indicates clearly, I think, that the user of the land by the corporation, 
under the lease, for establishment of a public interchange, was never intended 
by the lessor, and if the lessors were relied upon to give any such title, or 
right, in the corporation, the Board has emphatic notice that it would be 
objected to by the owners. 

(3) The lease is subject to the legal title in the mortgagees, who hold a 
lien to the extent of one million dollars on the property, and, for the reasons 
above stated, the trustees for the bond holders emphasized their strenuous objec- 
tions to the establishment of public interchange for the user, of that portion of 
the land for that purpose. 

(4) The lease, in its terms, does not give certainty of tenure, which I think 
both necessary and desirable in considering the establishment, by the Board, 
of a public interchange on the property. 

I am unable, therefore, to yield to the argument expressed by counsel for 
the applicants and the Canadian National, that there is right, or title, in the 
corporation, created by the lease, to support the application, or justify the 
making of the order asked for. 

It would, therefore, appear that conditions as to title are the same as 
when the matter was heard and adjudicated upon, at Hamilton, except that the 
Board has before it very formidable objections by the owners of the land and 
the trustees of the bond holders — the legal title of which, I think, the Board 
must take cognizance in dealing with such an important matter as the con- 
sideration of a suitable site, or location, for the establishment of a public inter- 
change. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 95 

The principles governing the establishment by the Board of an interchange 
of traffic involves, as I read the decisions of the Board upon the subject, con- 
sideration for public necessity in present traffic. Railway companies are entitled 
to conserve, and to hold, the traffic they build up on their individual undertaking, 
subject to the requirements and service of the public where they call for con- 
sideration. In such cases the business of the railway company, in the public 
interest, must be made subservient to the paramount interest of the public at 
large. It necessarily follows that, while the Board should not be slow to yield 
to representations of public necessity in ordering interchange, it must do so 
with due regard to the interests of the public to be so served thereby, and I 
find myself unable to see that the interests of the public, under the conditions 
set forth in the many representations that have been made to the Board upon 
this subject, will be forwarded, safe-guarded, or facilitated by the ordering of a 
public interchange by the connection of spurs of railway companies built for and 
serving private industries. 

I am not prepared, nor is it necessary for the purpose of deciding this issue, 
to go the length of saying that the Board's powers do not extend to the establish- 
ment of such an interchange, but I do find, as has been found on two previous 
occasions, that the circumstances and conditions under which interchange is 
sought at Ingersoll, are such as to render it highly undesirable that the Board 
should interfere and order interchange which would not only work an inter- 
ference with private rights and invade private property, but could not, from 
the conditions, give that permanency of tenure which it is desirable to have in 
view of making such an order. 

Counsel urged strongly upon the Board that the late Chief Commissioner 
varied the opinion expressed by him, as to title to land, at the Hamilton hearing 
in 1919. I have carefully examined and considered all that was said, both at 
the Hamilton sittings and at the recent sittings, and I cannot conclude that 
there was expressed on that occasion such a change of view as would affect the 
situation, as I now see it. The principles of convenience, desirability of location, 
and many other discretionary features which enter into the establishment of 
such an interchange remain undisturbed by anything that was said, per curiam, 
by the late Chief Commissioner during the last hearing. 

Mr. Fraser argued that the interchange asked for could be ordered under 
section 313 of the Railway Act. I do not agree with him, nor is his contention 
supported by the ruling of the Board. See North Battle ford Board of Trade 
for interchange between C.N.R. and C.P.R., Board's Orders and Judgments, 
Vol. XIV, p. 229, at p. 230. 

On the argument of the last mentioned case the question as to the applic- 
ability of sections 253 and 313 was discussed at some length and critically con- 
sidered. Section 313 is one of the clauses known as the " facilities " clauses, 
and provides for the facilities for receiving and delivering goods from different 
lines, at points of starting and destination. Section 253 is the interchange 
section, which gives the Board power to order general interswitohing of traffic 
between two or more railways. 

In the argument in the Cut Knife Battleford Case, above referred to, the 
counsel for the Canadian National Railways said that he had never heard of an 
application being made under the " facilities " clause for an interchange track, 
and he submitted that section 253 provides specifically for that. That section 
253 was the empowering section, and the Board adopted that view as above. 

The interchange asked for means the adoption, by the Board, of a junction 
of two industrial tracks of railway companies, built to serve a particular industry 
upon the private property of the industry, for the special purpose of enabling 
both railway companies to serve that industry. Manifestly the establishment 
of that connection for public interchange traffic would be an interference not 
•only with the rights of the railway companies and with the industry involved, 



96 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

but an invasion of the rights of the property in the freehold, upon which the 
private tracks are built into that industry, and with prejudicial effect to sur- 
rounding land. I do not think that the Board is justified in seizing upon such 
a connection, established for such specific purpose, as a place suitable for the 
establishment of a public interchange. It is not desirable or suitable in the 
public interests, and it would be, undoubtedly, a serious invasion of private 
rights, which the Board would not, under the circumstances, be justified in 
ordering. 

The difficulty of operating the interchange is also one which has received 
the close consideration of the technical officers of the Board, and has been 
reported upon adversely to the application. 

I would observe that under section 253 of the Railway Act, which is the 
interchange section, the Board may, under the circumstances stated in the 
section, order that the lines, or tracks, of the railways concerned shall be so 
connected, etc., etc., as to admit of the safe and convenient transfer, or passing 
of engines, cars and trains, etc., from the tracks, or lines of one railway to those 
of another, and that such connection shall be maintained and used. I think 
that it is quite clear that the proposed interchange would not admit of either the 
sale or convenient transfer of engines, cars, or trains, from the tracks of one 
railway to those of another, and that the uncertainty of the tenure of the land 
upon which it is proposed to force an interchange, would render it impossible 
for the Board to order that such a connection should be maintained and used. 

At the Hamilton sittings the late Chief Commissioner ruled that no order 
could be made upon the application, for the reasons stated in his judgment. This 
application, as has been stated, is for a rehearing, or renewal of that application, 
upon special grounds, involving the removal of the difficulty, which the late 
Chief Commissioner pointed out existed in the way of an order being made. 
The representations honestly and bona fide made were not, however, fulfilled, 
and the situation remained as it was at the conclusion of the Hamilton sittings, 
and covered by the decision in 1911, previously referred to. 

I find nothing in the shape of new material to justify the variation of either 
of the decisions of 1911 or 1919, and my view is, that the Board should not make 
the order asked for, at the point, and under the circumstances indicated. 

The application will, therefore, be dismissed. 

Commissioner Oliver: 

This application was heard at Ottawa on April 1, 1924, by five members 
of the Board, Deputy Chief Commissioner Nantel being absent. 

The Town of Ingersoll was represented by the mayor (William English), 
and by Alderman Scott, acting on a resolution of the town council. Following 
the passage of the resolution, the matter had been dealt with in various forms, 
and had finally reached the stage of an application by the town council for 
interswitching rights between the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National 
Railways, on behalf of the industries situated within the town and south of 
the river Thames. 

Ingersoll is an important industrial town. The Thames river divides it. 
Lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway give transportation service by that 
system on both sides of the river. The north side is also served by the Cana- 
dian National System. The industries north of the river enjoy interswitching 
advantages, while those on the south side do not. 

Evidence was offered as to the disabilities suffered by these industries 
because of lack of interswitching facilities. 

Alderman Scott stated that he was in business on the Canadian Pacific 
Railway main line, handling coal, grain, etc. Recently a car of oil cake was 
shipped to him from Baden, a Canadian National point. To get it to his place 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 97 

of business he had to team it nearly a mile, at a cost of from fifty to sixty 
cents per ton, or $12.50 to $15 for the car of twenty-five tons. The alternative 
was to pay two freights, which would have been more costly. If interswitching 
were allowed, the charge would have been half a cent a ton or $2.50 for the car. 
In the previous year he had handled 130 to 140 cars of stuff on his tracks. 

The Assistant Chief Commissioner asked Alderman Scott: "The tracks 
are in place; do the railway companies refuse to interswitch cars?" 

Mr. Scott replied: " The Canadian National would not object;/ but the 
Canadian Pacific Railway object to handling these cars," 

Mr. E. E. Kennedy, representing the Standard White Lime Company, said: — 

" We have a crushing plant on the Canadian Pacific Railway at 
Beachville; also a lime plant on the Grand Trunk at Beachville. There 
being no point of interswitching at Ingersoll, we cannot ship from our 
crushing plant for Canadian National delivery, without the sum of two 
local freights. Crushed stone being a low priced commodity, cannot 

stand two freight rates, therefore we lose that business On 

the other hand we have the same thing at our lime plant which is on 
the Canadian National. We might want to ship to a Canadian Pacific 
Railway point, which is not a competitive point, and as in the case of 
our crushed stone, we have two freights to pay." 

" We had some business in prospect at Temiskaming, Quebec. The 
rate on the Canadian National from Beachville to Temiskaming over 
the two railroads was 27 cents; the Canadian National Railway to 
Woodstock, change there, thence to Temiskaming, 27 cents. • On the 
Canadian Pacific Railway, taking the Canadian Pacific Railway through 
rate, it is only 23 cents, a difference of 80 cents per ton, and that was 

sufficient for us to lose the business Last year we produced 

approximately 100,000 tons (crushed stone) at Beachville. . . . We 
produce about three cars (of lime) a day there (Beachville), some times 
four cars," 

Letters giving reasons in detail why the several industries mentioned 
desired interswitching rights were filed with the Board by Mayor English. They 
included the Ingersoll Machine and Tool Company, the Royal Broom Com- 
pany, F. Richardson, contractor, The Ingersoll Paper Box Company, Ltd., Wm. 
Stone Sons, (Ltd.), Fertilizer, Hides, Wool, Furs, Etc.; The Wenlaw Company, 
Planing Mill, Lumber Yard, Coal and Cement. 

A letter on the Board's file from the Standard White Lime Company, dated 
December 29, 1921, contains the following statement: — 

" In December, 1919, we purchased a crusher which was shipped from 
Mimico (near Toronto) , Grand Trunk Railway to Beachville. It duly 
arrived with bill attached; 50,000 pounds rate 20 cents, amount paid 
$100. June 4, 1921, we had occasion to move the same crusher from the 
Grand Trunk Railway siding to Beachville to our Canadian Pacific Rail- 
way siding at Beachville, a distance of 600 yards. It was loaded on a 
fiat car on the Grand Trunk Railway, transferred at Woodstock to Cana- 
dian Pacific Railway, shipping bill called for 70,500 pounds and $155.10, 
with 11-cent rate on both railways". 

By Order of the Board dated November 3, 1909, the Grand Trunk Com- 
pany was — 

" Authorized to construct, maintain and operate the said branch 
railway or siding and a spur therefrom, extending from a point on the 
applicant (G.T.R.) company's railway, west of its Ingersoll station, in 
the county of Oxford in the province of Ontario, and thence across cer- 

25486-7 



98 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

tain lands of the applicant company and the river Thames, to and into 
the premises of the Noxon Company Limited, and operated by the Cana- 
dian Pacific Railway Company and to operate its trains over the same". 
" And it is further ordered that the portion of the proposed siding 
owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company leading to the Noxon 
Company's buildings, be operated and maintained jointly by the two 
companies, as may be mutually agreed between them. In the event of 
their failure to agree, the question of the joint user and maintenance to 
be settled by the Board". 

The foregoing order was the result of an application made by the Grand 
Trunk Railway, dated July 27, 1909. 

With the application the railway had filed a plan of the proposed branch 
and spur, a notice of sale to the railway of the private property necessary to be 
acquired, and the consent of the Noxon Company. The letter of consent reads 
as follows: — 

" Ingersoll, Ont., July 9, 1909. 

" The Grand Trunk Railway System, 

Toronto, Ont. 
"Dear Sirs, — We have received blue print plan 9667, dated Toronto July 
4, 1909, showing red thereon the tracks which you propose to build to 
connect with our two tracks shown in white on same blueprint, marked 
" Noxon Co's. siding". The two latter tracks are owned absolutely by 
the Noxon Mfg. Co. Ltd., and we have no objection to your company 
crossing and connecting with our two tracks as shown on the above men- 
tioned plan, nor have we any objection to you operating over those tracks 
to serve us and other industries. 

" Yours truly, 

THE NOXON COMPANY, LTD., 

Sgd. C. W. Riley, President, 
Wm. Watterworth, Vice President." 

That The Noxon Company was deeply interested in getting the Grand 
Trunk connection provided for by the order of November 3, 1909, is further 
shown by letters from that company appearing on the Board's File No. 11153. 
On October 8, 1909, C. W. Johnston, Manager of the Noxon Company, wrote 
the Secretary of the Board as follows: — 

1 ■ We are considerably inconvenienced as about ten cars of pig iron 
and about forty cars of lumber, besides several other carloads of raw 
material, are held up pending the completion of the siding, so we cannot 
really go on with our work until the siding is completed. We are at the 
present time doing a lot of teaming, which would not be necessary if the 
siding were finished." 

On November 3, Mr. Johnston wrote again: — 

" The case is greatly aggravated by the continued delay. May we 
not have your prompt consideration of the application?" 
On November 9, Mr. Johnston again wrote the Board: — 

" We now note that the railway companies have received the necessary 
order from the Board in reference to the siding into our works. We also 
note that they are to mutually agree upon the use of the siding, which we 
trust will not take very long as we are very anxious indeed that the work 
should be completed." 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 99 

The Noxon plant, manufacturing agricultural machinery and implements, 
was contiguous to the Canadian Pacific Railway line south of the Thames and 
was served by two switches from that line. Obviously the Company believed 
that it was to its material advantage to secure direct connection with the Grand 
Trunk system as well. These two connections gave the Noxon Company, in 
practice, the privileges which are expressed in section 313 of the Railway Act, 
regarding interswitching, which reads as follows: — 

" 313. (1) Where a branch line of one railway joins or connects the 
line or lines of such railway with another, the Board may, upon ap- 
plication of one of the companies, or of a municipal corporation or other 
public body, order that the railway company which constructed such 
branch line shall afford all reasonable and proper facilities for the inter- 
change, by means of such branch, of freight and live stock traffic, and the 
empty cars incidental thereto, between the lines of the said railway and 
those of the railway with which the said branch is so joined or connected, 
in both directions, and also between the lines of the said first mentioned 
railway and those of other railways connecting with the lines of the first 
mentioned railway, and all tracks and sidings used by such first men- 
tioned railway, for the purpose of loading and unloading cars, and owned 
or controlled by, or connecting with the lines of the company owning or 
controlling the first mentioned railway, and such other tracks and sidings 
as the Board from time to time directs; and the company owning or con- 
trolling the secondly mentioned railway shall furnish similar reasonable 
and proper facilities to the first mentioned railway and to other lines con- 
necting with its own railway, and shall in all respects be under duties cor- 
responding to those of the company owning or controlling the first men- 
tioned railway, and shall be subject in like manner to the directions of the 
Board." 

" (2) The Board may, in and by such order, or by other orders, from 
time to time determine as questions of fact, and direct the price per car 
which shall be charged by and for such traffic." , 

It would appear that the advantages of access to both railways enjoyed by 
the Noxon Company, as a result of the Order of November 3, 1909, were so 
obvious that an application was made to the Board by the citizens, merchants 
and manufacturers of the town of Ingersoll for an Order requiring the Grand 
Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to pro- 
vide interchange or transfer tracks in and for the other industries of the town 
of Ingersoll. This application was followed by an order dated August 1, 1911, 
by which the Grand Trunk Railway was authorized to construct at its own 
expense a track as shown on a plan dated April 26, 1911: — 

" For the purpose of interchanging traffic between the railway and 
that of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Ingersoll, the work to 
be completed on or before the 19th day of October, 1911". 

The piece of track was constructed some time in 1912. 
On March 8, 1919, the then mayor of Ingersoll, (J. Buchanan) wrote the 
Board stating that the interswitching order of April 26, 1911: — 

"Only served the north side of the river where two plants are located, 
namely the John Morrow Company and the Ingersoll Packing Company, 
while other factories such as the Wm. Stone Company, Fertilizer Manu- 
facturers; the Ingersoll Machine Company; Borden Milk Company; 
Wood Milling Company; The Wenlaw Coal and Lumber Company, and 
the Scott and Daniels mill and coal dealers etc., get no benefit whatever 
from the interswitching arrangement on the north side of the river. 

25486— 7i 



100 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" We have on the property known as the Noxon Com- 
pany, which is on the south side of the river, perfect interswitching 
between the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, right on 
that property. The Ingersoll Council and Board of Trade, and the manu- 
facturers wish to request the Railway Board to give us the privilege of 
using this interswitching on the Noxon property for town interswitching, 
so that the manufacturers of the south side of the river may have equal 
advantages with, those on the north side of the river, in .so far as inter- 
switching is concerned." 

The letter of Mayor Buchanan was followed by a great deal of corre- 
spondence. On March 20, 1919, the Council of the Town of Ingersoll passed the 

following resolution : — 

"That we request the Dominion Railway Board to grant to the 
Ingersoll manufacturers and other shippers on the south side of the river, 
the privilege of interswitching; on: the property known ,as the Noxon 
property, where tracks are already laid which are suitable; and that we 
authorize the mayor and clerk to make application for the same and that 
we notify the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk railways of the 
action we are taking in the matter." 

On April 22, 1919, the Assistant Chief Engineer of the Board reported that 
he had inspected the situation at Ingersoll, and submitted a plan. He said: — 

"In view however of the number of cars to be transferred at the 
present time, it appears to me that the construction of the interchange 
track is not necessary. The Grand Trunk Railway track marked E-C on 
the plan herewith can be used as an interchange track and would properly 

take care of all the cars to be interchanged for some time to come 

I recommend that interchange be ordered at Ingersoll, and that the track 
marked E-C be used as an interchange track." 

On September 9, 1919, G. A. Brow r n, Chief Clerk of the Traffic Department 
of the Board, made a careful, 'detailed report after having visited Ingersoll. In 
the course of his report he says: — 

"On the property which I referred to as being leased to the Muni- 
cipality, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway 
both have tracks, and as a matter of fact, an interchange is already con- 
structed thereon. This property is coloured pink on the map. Cars could 
be interchanged on the property, without the construction of further 
tracks, and I understand from the Mayor that both the Grand Trunk and 
Canadian Pacific railways were agreeable to this when the matter was 
first taken up. Since then, of course, the Canadian Pacific Railway has 
filed an objection." 

Mr. Brown's report concludes: — 

"In my opinion the interchange is required, as the present interchange 
serves only the St. Mary's Division of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and 
is useless to those shippers having plants on the south side of the river." 

From the statements and arguments presented at the hearing, and from 
documents on the Board's files, it would appear that opposition to the applica- 
tion of the Town Council was confined to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the 
John Morrow Screw and Nut Company, owners and occupants of what was 
formerly the Noxon property, and upon which the tracks of the Canadian 
National and Canadian Pacific systems to be used in the proposed interswitching 
operations were actually located and connected; and the National Trust Com- 
pany, who were the holders of a mortgage on the John Morrow property. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 101 

I am unable to see any merit in the contention of the National Trust 
Company, which, as I understand it from the documents' on file, was that the 
use of the tracks now located on the John Morrow Company's property for inter- 
switching purposes, would prejudice their interest in the property. 

I reach this conclusion, having specially in view the reports and recom- 
mendations of the Assistant Chief Engineer of the Board and of the Chief Clerk 
of the Board's Traffic Department. Even if any damage were possibly to result 
to the property and their security thereby be depreciated, that to my mind, 
would not be a reason for refusal of the interchange privilege by this Board. 
If the National Trust Company were found to be entitled to valuable considera- 
tion for damage suffered, payment of that damage would have to be provided 
for. The course of events would be the same as in other like cases, where 
property damage is suffered because of railway construction. If it were possible 
to prevent railway construction because of prospective damage to property, there 
would be fewer railways. 

The objection of the John Morrow Company resembles in some degree that 
of the National Trust; namely, possible damage to property; with the addition 
of the claim of trespass upon their rights of ownership. Such claims as they 
may establish of damage or trespass must be dealt with as provided in the 
Railway Act; but unless the provisions and purpose of that Act are to be 
ignored, cannot be permitted to prevent railway construction or railway con- 
nection. The Act presumes a railway to be a public utility, and adequately 
provides that private right must make way for public service. 

The John Morrow Company is the successor of the Noxon Company in 
the ownership of the property that would be specially affected by an inter- 
switching order. By their letter of July 9, 1909, the Noxon Company gave 
formal consent to the operation of the Grand Trunk Railway, of which the 
Canadian National is the successor, to operate over those tracks to serve " us 
and other industries." The Grand Trunk built the branch to the Noxon plant, 
having to bridge the river Thames in order to do so, on the definite and distinct 
understanding that they should be permitted to serve not only the Noxon Com- 
pany, but other industries as well. That being the fact, I respectfully submit 
that the John Morrow Company cannot successfully repudiate, in 1924, the 
agreement made by the Noxon Company in 1909. 

Further in connection with the opposition of the John Morrow Company 
to the application of the town of Ingersoll for an interswitching order, there 
appears on the Board's files copy of an agreement between the parties, dated 
December 23, 1918, by which the John Morrow Company leaves to the town 
of Ingersoll the lands and premises formerly occupied by the Noxon Company, 
until the first of February, 1929. The agreement sets out that, — 

" the corporation desires to lease the lands, premises and property 
described for the purpose of promoting the establishment of industries 
thereon." 

The sixth paragraph of the agreement is as follows: — 

" The corporation shall have full power and authority to sublet the 
said blocks ' B ' and ' C ' on such terms and conditions as may seem 
proper, but each sub-lease made by the corporation shall provide that no 
business shall be carried on the lands leased which shall be deemed a 
nuisance to the Ingersoll File Company, Limited, or to any sub-lessees 
of the said lands, and that no business shall be carried on thereupon 
which shall increase the insurance on the Ingersoll File Company, Lim- 
ited, or any other sub-lessee of the Noxon property." 



102 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The seventh paragraph provides that the town shall insure the buildings 
on block " B " of the property to their full insurable value, in the name of the 
company. 

The town pays a yearly rental of $4,250 for the property and grants full 
exemption from taxation. The terms of this lease indicate the anxiety of the 
town tor industrial expansion. The facts placed before the Board prove clearly 
that the lack of interswitching facilities south of the Thames is a serious impedi- 
ment to that expansion. The objections made by the John Morrow Company 
to an interswitching order, which is necessary so that the town may get value 
lor the money they arc paying and the exemptions they are giving that com- 
pany, seem to me entirely unwarranted under the circumstances. 

It would also seem to me that having placed the property in the hands of 
the town for its uses until 1929, the John Morrow Company is not now in a 
position to make valid objection that the use of the existing tracks for inter- 
switching purposes is an infringement on their property rights; or that the lay- 
ing down of additional tracks in order to facilitate interswitching movements 
would or could constitute such an infringement, so long as the lease is in force. 

The objection taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway would seem to be that 
they give adequate service to the Ingersoll industries south of the Thames and 
therefore the order to permit interswitching should not be made. It would 
appear from the evidence submitted at the hearing, and from the letters and 
reports on file, that there is sharp and decided difference of opinion on that 
point between the railway and its customers. All agreed that the service 
rendered by the Canadian Pacific Railway over its own lines was prompt and 
efficient, but that company did not and could not render service over the lines of 
the competing system; which service the applicants desire to use on terms more 
favourable than those now available to them. The statements made at the 
hearing, ond appearing on the files of the Board, as to disabilities suffered by 
shippers located south of the Thames, because of lack of interswitching facili- 
ties, were not controverted in the arguments of the railway counsel. 

The application made by the town of Ingersoll which resulted in the Board's 
order of April 26, 1911, was for general interswitching privileges. These privi- 
leges were granted, so far as the industries north of the river Thames were con- 
cerned. These were two in number, but only one was affected, because the 
other already enjoyed connection with both railways. As I understand it, any 
rea-ons that can possibly exist for the refusal of interswitching privileges to the 
industries south of the Thames, must have existed for refusal of these privileges 
north of the Thames, I am unable to appreciate the principle upon which an 
interswitching order was made applicable to only that part of the town where 
the need was least and refused to that part where it was greatest. 

I observe that in the letter of the counsel for the Canadian Pacific Rail- 
way to the Board, dated December 30, 1924, he says: — 

" The report of the hearing at Ottawa on September 14, 1909 (File 
11153), at page 10223 shows clearly that it (the Grand Trunk branch 
to the Noxon plant), was a private industrial spur for this one industry 
that was in contemplation, and this is confirmed by the fact that the 
Grand Trunk never acquired the right of way for it." 

It would appear to me that the terms of the letter of consent of the Noxon 
Company of date July 9, 1909, do not bear out the contention of the railway 
counsel that " it was a private industrial spur for this one industry." I also 
desire to observe that the filing by the Grand Trunk of the acknowledgment 
of sale of certain lands required for right of way of the then proposed branch 
by the former owner, James McNab Grotty, does not bear out the contention 
of the railway counsel that, — 

" The Grand Trunk never acquired the right of way for it." 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 103 

In his letter to the Board dated Decemiber 22, 1924, counsel for the Cana- 
dian Pacific says: — 

"It is alleged that the Grand Trunk spur is a branch line; but 
this is untenable." 

In reference to the foregoing I desire to observe that the order of the 
Board of November 3, 1909, authorized the Grand Trunk to — 

" Construct, maintain and operate the said branch line or siding 
and a spur therefrom, extending from a point on the applicant com- 
pany's railway, west of its Ingersoll station, etc." — 

and that I am unable to find either in the application or in the order any words 
that would express or imply the idea that there was any limitation on the use 
of the track so authorized as a branch line, except as to the terms of its joint 
operation with the Canadian Pacific Railway. 

On the facts as above set forth I am compelled to conclude that, — 

(1) A number of important industries in the Town of Ingersoll are at a 
serious disadvantage in reaching customers because of lack of interswitching 
facilities; 

(2) There are railroad tracks already laid down and suitably located which 
would permit interswitching as applied for; 

(3) The objections urged against the issue of an order for interswitching 
Jo not appear to me to be well founded; 

(4) Power has been conferred on this Board for the purpose of enabling it 
to remedy conditions such as those complained of. 

For these reasons I am unable to agree with the judgment of Mr. Commis- 
sioner Boyce, concurred in by the Assistant Chief Commissioner that the appli- 
cation of the town of Ingersoll should be dismissed. 

I desire further to point out that the conclusion that the application 
should be dismissed has not yet been reached by a majority of the members 
of the Board who heard the evidence in the case. The then Chief Commissioner, 
Hon. F. B. Carvell, who presided on that occasion, is now deceased; Mr. Com- 
missioner Lawrence is now absent from the city and has been absent for some 
weeks on account of serious illness. Under these circumstances and having in 
view the importance of the question involved and the important documents and 
mass of correspondence that has come upon the files of the Board in connection 
with the case since it was last heard on April 1, 1924, 1 would respectfully suggest 
that there should be another hearing before a final decision is given. 

APPLICATION ROBIN HOOD MILLS, LTD. REFUSAL OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 

in re claim on cars of flour to Montreal for export. 

Judgment Assistant Chief Commissioner, June 8, 1925, concurred in by 
the Chief Commissioner and Mr. Commissioner Boyce. 

Under date of December 31, 1924, the Board was written to as follows by 
the Robin Hood Mills, Limited: — 

" Referring to Board's General Order 234 of May 22, 1918, also to 
Board's Order 32195 of March 6, 1922, file 8641.3, our application for 
ruling as to whether sections 1 and 2 of General Order 234 were applicable 
to milling in transit regulations on shipments destined to east of Port 
Arthur, Fort William or Armstrong, Ont. 

" On consideration of our claims under these orders, the Canadian 
Pacific Railway advise that they cannot entertain claims on cars of our 
flour destined for Wheat Export Company, Montreal, for export, shipped 
April 1 ; 1918, and thereafter on transit which originated at points in 



104 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Western Canada between November 14, 1917, and April 1, 1918, offering 
as a reason for this that between these dates their all-rail tariff to 
Montreal for export, E-3023, C.R.C. E-3346, was not effective having 
been automatically cancelled on November 14, 1917, by cancellation 
clause as contained therein. 

" Our understanding is that under Board's Order 234 of May 22, 
1918, Order 32195 of March 6, 1922, where transit originated in Western 
Canada prior to March 15, 1918, 'we were entitled to the balance of the 
old rate from point of origin of the grain to the final destination of the 
product whether it be in Western or Eastern Canada. 

" We do not believe it was the intention of the Board when accept- 
ing into their files, Canadian Pacific Tariff E-3023, C.R.C. E-3346, that 
the automatic cancellation clause as contained on the face thereof would 
restrict the application or value of transit, or in any way conflict with 
the transit regulations as contained in Canadian Pacific Tariff W-3821, 
C.R.C. E-2218 filed as of April 10, 1917. 

" We would also point out that this cancellation clause appeared 
in several tariffs previous to their issue E-3023 C.R.C. E-3346, but it 
was not until April 25, 1924, when considering our claim under your 
orders as above mentioned that the Canadian Pacific in their letter, 
original attached, raised this question. In fact, the Canadian Pacific 
Traffic and Claims Department had our claims with all details of transit 
application under consideration for a period of five years and no excep- 
tion was taken thereto, and we do not therefore understand why, at this 
date and on this particular claim, they should take exception to the use 
of this transit on Montreal for export cars. Had they, at any previous 
date, intimated that they would not permit the application of transit 
originating at a time when the port of Montreal was closed to naviga- 
tion or not have established a precedent as they did, we would then have 
been in a position to have obtained full value on this transit by using 
transit prior to November 14, 1917, on this movement and using the 
transit in question to West St. John or on domestic traffic and we do not 
think it was the Board's intention that the feature as raised by the 
Canadian Pacific traffic officials should affect the value of transit so long 
as that transit is used under transit regulations as laid down by the 
Board in Tariff W-3821, C.R.C. E-2218; and we would like ruling' from 
the Board in this connection." 

The matter was taken up with the railway for the filing of its submission, 
and when this was received copy of same was sent forward to the Robin Hood 
Mills, Limited, which filed >a reply reading as follows: — 

" In reference to the above, your letter of March 2 enclosing copy 
of Mr. Flintoft's February 27. 

" We have perused carefully this letter but cannot find that Mr. 
Flintoft has covered any new ground. 

" He is quite (correct in stating that under Board's Order 234 of 
May 22, 1918, read in conjunction with Board's Order 32195, of March 
6, 1922, the correct rates applicable on milling in transit shipments were 
those in effect from point of origin of the .grain to final destination of its 
product. He is also correct in stating that the question arises in con- 
nection with shipments of grain which originated at western points 
between November 14, 1917, and April 15, 1918, and on which the tran- 
sit covering such grain was applied on shipments of flour shipped to 
Montreal for export from Moose Jaw and Calgary plants subsequent to 
April 15, 1918, and that we claim application of the 2Hc. rate as pro- 
vided for in Canadian Pacific Railway Tariff E-3023, CJt.C. E-3346. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 105 

" (1) What we wish to make clear is that tariff W-3821 C.R.C. 2218 
carried transit privileges as sanctioned and interpreted by the Board 
making applicable through rate from point of origin of the grain to final 
destination of its product if shipped within a period of six months; and 
we feel that it was not the intention of the Board to accept into its files a 
tariff or tariffs covering proportionate rates on grain and grain products 
from Fort William to Montreal for export with a cancellation clause 
restricting the value of transit where same used within the six-month 
period and under regulations as prescribed by the Board. 

" (2) We would again point out that this same cancellation clause 
was contained in several issues applying on grain and grain products from 
Fort William to Montreal for export issued prior to E-3023, C.R.C. 
E-3346, but at no time previous to Mr. Steele's letter of April 25, 1924, 
or for that matter subsequent thereto did the Canadian Pacific Traffic 
officials take objection to the application of transit on cars destined 
Montreal for export shipped after the opening of navigation but where 
the transit and the grain originated in Western Canada at a time when 
the port of Montreal was closed to navigation. 

" (3) As we see it, the Board certainly would not permit a clause 
restricting the value of cancellation as provided for in tariff W-3821, 
C.R.C. 2218, and further had the Canadian Pacific traffic officials objected 
to or pointed out that it was not permissible for us to use this transit, 
shippers would have been given an opportunity to get ruling from the 
Board before using the transit which originated in Western Canada at a 
time when the port of Montreal was closed, and they would have used 
other transit that originated prior to November 14, 1917, of the same 
value that could have applied on this traffic, and used the transit that 
was used to Montreal to West St. John or some other point. 

" (4) As a matter of fact, on March 15, 1918, when Board's Order 
234 became effective, we had in store and in transit both at and to Calgary 
and at and to Moose Jaw several million pounds of transit that originated 
prior to March 15, 1918, and which under the Board's orders referred to 
we could have used either on domestic or export traffic to Eastern Cana- 
dian points applying the old through rates as in effect on the date transit 
originated and had the Canadian Pacific traffic officials objected or 
pointed out then as they did in Mr. Steele's letter of April 25, 1924, that 
the transit originating between November 14, 1917, and April 15, 1918, 
could not be used to Montreal for export at the old through rate, or had 
this ruling been effective on previous movements as covered by previous 
issues, we would, as stated, have used other transit that would have given 
us the old rate and have used the transit we did to Montreal for export 
or on other domestic traffic. 

" (5) As a matter of fact, the Canadian Pacific Traffic officials will 
find on reference to their file that we used after April 15, 1918, millions 
of pounds of transit that originated in Western Canada prior to November 
14, 1917, and which could just as easily have been used on this Montreal 
for export business. 

" (6) We note Mr. Flintoft gives reference to General Order 398 of 
April 11, 1924, which provides under section 36 that a tariff or supplement 
having once been cancelled cannot be restored, and that if it is desired to 
reinstate rates previously abrogated, same must be covered by an entirely 
new schedule. 

" (7) This order was not issued until April 11, 1924, whereas the 
tariffs under discussion were effective in 1917, and the movement took 
place after April 15, 1918, so the Order in question is not applicable. 



106 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" Summing up the entire matter as we see it, it would seem:— 

" 1. That the carriers were at fault in filing a proportionate tariff 
from Fort William to Montreal for export with a cancellation clause that 
restricted the value of the transit or cancelled in any way the transit 
privileges as contained in Western Lines tariff W-3821, C.R.C. W-2218, 
and which had been previously on file with the Board. 

" 2. The carriers established .a precedent of permitting the use of such 
cancellation under former issues of tariffs carrying the same cancellation 
clause, and no exception was taken to the use of cancellation, presumably 
on the assumption that where cancellation was applied within the six 
months' period, as prescribed in transit regulations sanctioned by the 
Board, that same was correct. 

" 3. As slated, we had several million pounds of transit available on 
grain in store and en route shipped prior to March 15, 1918, all of which 
when used East of Fort William we were entitled to the old rate on, or 
where the new rate applied refund to the basis of the old rate. All of this 
transit had the same refund value where the new rate applied whether 
shipped to Montreal for export, West St. John for export or domestically. 

" 4. We further submit that carriers' tariffs relating to the transit 
arrangement and as in effect prior to March 15, 1918, were ambiguous; 
and this is borne out by the fact that carriers themselves did not correctly 
interpret neither tariffs West or East. of Fort William as applying on 
grain and grain products and it was only after Board's orders referred 
to in this letter that application was clear. In view thereof and in line 
with Board's previous rulings we feel that such tariffs should properly 
be used in the case of shippers." 

After consideration of these submissions, the following interim report of the 
Board's Traffic Department was issued, the applicant being advised that written 
exceptions thereto might be filed by him within three weeks. The report with 
this notification went forward to the applicant under date of March 30, 1925. 

Under date of April 9, 1925, the Board was advised by the Robin Hood 
Mills, Limited, that written exceptions would be forwarded by it within the 
specified three weeks. 

This matter has been standing for filing of exceptions; none have been 
received; and I am, therefore, of the opinion that the following interim report 
may now be accepted as final judgment: — ■ 

" I have numbered the paragraphs of the letter from the Robin Hood 
Mills, Limited, dated March 11, and reply seriatim as follows: — 

" 1. The Robin Hood Mills, Limited, are correct in their statement 
as to the provision of Canadian Pacific Railway's tariff C.R.C. No. 
W-2218. The tariff is to be used in connection with traffic via Montreal 
and various Atlantic ports. During certain portions of the year, it is a 
physical impossibility to export via Montreal; but other ports are open 
the year round and complainants could have exported via such ports. 
There is nothing unlawful in cancelling the Montreal tariff during close 
of navigation, as otherwise the company would have rates in effect for a 
service which they were unable to perform. 

" The transit arrangements were established to place various mills 
on an equality. During the period November 15, 1917, to April 14, 1918, 
it was impossible for any flour mill to export direct via Montreal at rates 
named in the cancelled tariff, C.R.C. No. E-3346. How then can the 
Robin Hood Mills, Limited, expect to obtain the benefit of such rates? 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 1C7 

" 2. I find that with the exception of the period covered by the com- 
plaint, the rates on flour from Fort William to Montreal for export from 
1917 to date have been the same upon the opening of navigation as were 
in effect at close of the previous year, so that no dispute could arise in 
connection with the proper rate to be applied, and there is therefore no 
evidence of misinterpretation or wrongful application of tariff by the 
railway. 

" 3, 4 and 5. It is unfortunate that complainants made use of transit 
grain originating during the period of closed navigation via Montreal, 
instead of using some of the million pounds referred to which originated 
prior to November 14, 1917. 

" 6 and 7. It is true that General Order No. 398, quoted by Mr. 
Flintoft, was issued subsequent to the date of the shipments under dis- 
cussion, but this order merely officially approved and gave general notice 
of a practice which has been in effect since the inception of the Board 
and previously promulgated by r-orrespondence in individual cases. 

"As no tariff was in effect from the head-of-lakes to Montreal for 
export during the period in which the grain was forwarded from point of 
origin, the company, under General Order No. 234, and interpreting 
Order No. 32195, might have charged the local rate to Montreal plus 
terminal, or a total through rate 4 cent higher than was charged by using 
the export rate from Fort William that was in effect on the date of arrival 
of the flour at that point, 

" In my opinion, the company have charged rates legally in effect 
and the application of the Robin Hood Mills, Limited, should therefore 
be dismissed." 

APPLICATION J. C. HODGSON, CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, JAM 
SECTION, C.M.A., re COMMODITY RATES ON CANNED GOODS 

Judgment Assistant Chief Commissioner, June 11 , 1925, concurred in by the 
Chief Commissioner and Mr. Commissioner Boyce 

From British Columbia canning points to distributing centres in Alberta, 
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba three sets of rates have been established by the 
railway companies on canned goods, in carloads, which are subject to three 
minimum weights, viz., 24,000, 40,000, and 60,000 pounds. From Eastern Cana- 
dian points to the same destinations, there is only one basis in effect, viz., that 
of the fifth class rates, minimum 24,000 pounds. 

The applicants allege that the existence of three sets of rates from British 
Columbia canning points east-bound, and refusal of the railway companies to 
establish a similar arrangement from Eastern Canadian points westbound, 
results in unjust discrimination which they ask the Board to order removed. 
Applicants further allege that the fifth class rates as applying from British 
Columbia points of origin to prairie destinations are fair and equitable as com- 
pared with the fifth class rates from Eastern Canadian points to the same des- 
tinations. On the submission of the applicants, therefore, their application 
would be met by directing cancellation of commodity rates, where lower than 
fifth class, from British Columbia shipping points, making the fifth class basis 
applicable both east-bound from British Columbia and westbound from Eastern 
Canadian points. 

The rates from British Columbia canning points to the distributing centres 
above referred to are on a competitive basis. The rate which is specially sig- 
nificant is that from Vancouver to Winnipeg. This being on a competitive basis, 
it, in turn, influences the rate adjustment from other points in British Columbia. 

For many years, eastbound rates on specific commodities from points in 
British Columbia — recognized as Pacific coast terminals — to certain points in 



108 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Western Canada as well as to destinations in Eastern Canada have borne a rela- 
tionship to the rates on like commodities from the corresponding terminals in 

bate of Washington. The result is that rates from British Columbia points 
i bus been held down to a basis lower than what is provided for under the 
regular scale of the Canadian Freight Classification. 

Under these competitive conditions, the rates from Vancouver to Winnipeg 
are influenced and controlled by the rates published by American lines, such as 
the Great Northern and Northern Pacific from Seattle to Winnipeg, The 
Vancouver-Winnipeg rate is a competitive one and the tariff so indicates, the 
rate being described as a competitive rate. The Seattle-Winnipeg rate on canned 

- is 81.42^ per 100 pounds, minimum 40,000 pounds, and $1.26-2, minimum 
60.000 pounds. As a result of this and arising out of competitive reasons, there 
are these two sets of rates and minima applying from Vancouver to Winnipeg. 

The competitive situation thus outlined has further influence in regard to 
the movement in British Columbia. The Winnipeg rates operate as a maximum 
carrying the rate of $1.26^, with minimum 60,000 pounds, back to Regina and 
Saskatoon. The Vancouver- Winnipeg rate also applies as a maximum on Mission 
and Haney, shipping points on the main line of the Canadian Pacific directly 
intermediate to Vancouver, at distances of 41 and 26 miles respectively. 

From Vancouver to Calgary, the regular fifth-class rate applies, regardless 
of the carload minimum weight; and the Calgary rate is also published to 
Edmonton. Rates to other points between Calgary and the destination territory 
to which the Vancouver- Winnipeg rates apply as maxima are keyed in with 
relation to the differences between the Calgary and Winnipeg rates. 

The rate adjustment from Vancouver, created under the conditions above 
described, necessitated a similar arrangement of different sets of rates and 
minima to the same destination territory from interior British -Columbia points, 
in order to put the canners there on a basis relative to the coast canners. There- 
fore, from Nelson, Brilliant, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, and Kamloops to Win- 
nipeg, the 24,000 pounds minimum carries the fifth-class Pacific distributing 
rates. The rates established for 1 the 40,000 and 60,000 pounds cars are based on 
the same percentage of the fifth-class Pacific distributing rates as the commodity 
rates from Vancouver to the same destinations bear to the fifth class terminal 
rates. To Regina, the rates are established on the same basis, and to Saskatoon 
the Regina rates are applied. From Oliver, the rates are uniformly based on 2 
cfmts per 100 pounds, over Penticton. 

From the interior British Columbia points to Calgary, the fifth- class Pacific 
distributing rates apply, and this is also the basis of rates to Edmonton for cars 
of 24,000 pounds minimum. The rates to Edmonton for the 40,000 pounds and 
^0 000 pounds minimum are, in the case of Kamloops, the Calgary rate, and 
from the other representative interior shipping points they are based on the sam^ 
difference under the fifth-class distributing rate as in the case of Kamloops. 

The situation throughout, then, from British Columbia points eastbound, 
involved in the present application is a competitive one arising out of conditions 
developed in connection with competing American lines, and this situation reacts 
not only on the Vancouver to Winnipeg, movement but also on the rate adjust- 
ments from interior and intermediate points. 

From Ontario points, the fifth-class rate, with minimum of 24,000 pounds, 
is the basis in effect. While the competitive situation affecting the eastbound 
rate does not apply in connection with the westbound rate from Ontario points, 
there is also a factor of competition here which reacts to the advantage of the 
Ontario shipping point and has a bearing upon the rate on wdiich it can get into 
western territory. This is referred to later. 

Mr. Hodgson, for the applicants, contended that there should be from 
Ontario points westward a commodity rate lower than fifth class for carloads 
of 40,000 pounds, and a still lower commodity rate on carloads of 60,000 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 109 

pounds. In contending, in substance, that the same arrangements should apply 
westbound into the Prairie Provinces as apply eastbound to said provinces, the 
applicant left out of consideration the competitive conditions already described, 
which have an important bearing upon the rate adjustment from Vancouver. 

The situation in connection with the Winnipeg competition requires some 
analysis. From Vancouver to Winnipeg, a distace of 1,465 miles, the rates are 
$1,424 for a 40,000 pounds minimum, and $1.26^ for a 60,000 pounds minimum. 
Taking Aylmer, Ont., as a characteristic point, the distance to Winnipeg is 1,317 
miles, with a rate of $1.14 and a minimum of 24,000 pounds. This rate governs 
for any weight in excess of the minimum. This, however, is an all-rail rate. 
The lake-and-rail rate applicable during the season of navigation is $1.08. In 
addition, there is the all-water rate applicable to shipments from certain eastern 
Canadian points, said rate being $1.04. 

It was stated in evidence that a very large percentage of the traffic moves 
under these lower all-water and lake-and-rail rates. Mr. Ransom made the 
statement that of the total tonnage to Winnipeg in 1922, 70 per cent moved lake 
and rail. This was not controverted in the evidence submitted. 

So far as the all-water rate to Winnipeg is concerned, it is as low or lower 
than the rates applying from representative points in British Columbia to 
Winnipeg under the various minima, with the exception of Nelson and Brilliant, 
which are respectively 98 cents and $1. For purposes of comparison, the follow- 
ing British Columbia points have been taken as representative: Vancouver, 
Nelson, Brilliant, Vernon, Kelowna, Oliver, Penticton, Mission, Haney and 
Kamlcops. 

In the case of the lake-and-rail rate of $1.08 to Winnipeg, six of the 
points in question have, under the 60,000 pounds minimum, lower rates from 
British Columbia to Winnipeg than from Aylmer to Winnipeg. These points 
are: Nelson, 98 cents; Brilliant, $1; Vernon, Kelowna, and Kamloops, $1.04; and 
Penticton, $1.06. It appears, then, that in meeting British Columbia shipments 
at the point where they presumably have the longest mileage, namely, Winnipeg, 
the Ontario shippers have the advantage to that point of water competition 
holding down their rates. 

The special subject matter of the application relates to the 40,000 and 
60,000 pounds minima on which it is understood that the bulk of the ship- 
ments from British Columbia points move. There is also provision for 24,000 
pounds minimum to the various destinations. In order to compare the eastern 
and western movements, Winnipeg may be taken as a common point. The 
distance from Vancouver to Winnipeg is 1,465 miles, while from Aylmer, Ont., 
to Winnipeg is 1,317 miles. 

The Board has no evidence showing the respective volumes of traffic moving 
to Winnipeg from the West and from the East on the 24,000 pounds minimum. 
It must also take into consideration differences in mileage. Equally, there must 
be borne in mind as affecting the situation differences in rate scales, reflecting to 
some degree differences in conditions as to water competition. Subject to these 
exceptions, it may be pointed out that when the rates applicable are reduced 
to ton-mile rates, the rate from Aylmer, Ont., to Winnipeg, on the 24,000 pounds 
minimum, is 74 per cent of the ton-mile rate from Vancouver to Winnipeg on 
the same minimum. 

The applicant sets out that at points such as Calgary and Edmonton the 
most severe competition was met. The comparative mileages should be borne 
in mind in this connection. While the hauls from the various British Columbia 
points to Calgary and Edmonton vary from 391 miles to a maximum of 810 
miles, the distances in the case of movements from Eastern Canada were from 
2,100 to 2,200 miles. 

The statements made regarding the alleged effect on the Ontario shippers 
through British Columbia canners cutting into their business were very general. 



110 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

In allegations that business is affected through one section cutting into the 
business of another, it is important that definite information as to the nature 
oi the change and the extent of the detriment alleged should be furnished. Here, 
there was not submitted detail evidence enabling one to balance the eastbound 
movement from British Columbia points against the westbound movement from 
Ontario points. 

In so far as there is evidence available, it goes to show that, notwithstanding 
the complaint made in regard to the existing rate situation, a very considerable 
volume of traffic of the nature involved moves from Ontario points to the terri- 
tory west of the Great Lakes. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. De Pass, of the 
Carnation Milk Products Company, filed a statement to the effect that of the 
last 150.000 cases of their product shipped from Aylmer to points in Canada, 
76.000 cases, or 50.7 per cent, were shipped into the territory west of and 
including Fort William and Port Arthur. 

British Columbia points of origin have the advantage of geographical prox- 
imity to the consuming points. On longer hauls, the ton-mile rates, as a result 
of the tapering of the rates, are normally on a lower basis, and so the ton-mile 
rates of the shorter British Columbia hauls are higher than those of the longer 
haul from Ontario points to the same destinations. The ton-mile rates of the 
longer hauls from Ontario points are affected not only by the tapering of the 
rates but also by the difference in scale. 

Bearing in mind the limitations which apply to making conclusions from 
ton-mile rates, at the same time some comparisons are instructive as showing 
how the rate charged, measured in terms of the ton-mile unit, works out. 

Aylmer, Ont., is taken as a typical originating point. From Aylmer to 
Calgary is a distance of 2,140 miles; to Edmonton, 2,110; to Regina, 1,673; to 
Saskatoon, 1,787; and to Winnipeg, 1,317. 

Calgary. The ton-mile rate from Aylmer to Calgary is 54 per cent of the 
average ton-mile rate from representative British Columbia points, as already 
indicated, to that destination. These representative British Columbia points 
have mileages varying from 391 to 641. To Edmonton, the Aylmer ton-mile 
rate averages 64 per cent of the British Columbia ton-mile rates as above 
defined. The distances from representative British Columbia points vary from 
519 to 810 miles. To Regina, the percentage is 69 per cent. The British 
Columbia distances vary from 734 to 1,108. To Saskatoon, it is 75 per cent. 
The distances from British Columbia points vary from 832 to 1,119. To Winni- 
peg, the percentage is 84 per cent. The distances from British Columbia points 
vary from 1,091 to 1,465. 

The revisions suggested on behalf of the applicant were on the average of 
the 40,000 and 60,000 pounds minimum. In the case of Calgary, it would 
change the percentage from 54 per cent to 37 per cent; in the case of Edmonton, 
it would change the percentage from 64 per 1 cent to 4.4 per cent; in the case of 
Regina, the change would be from 69 per cent to 52 per cent; to Saskatoon, the 
change would be from 75 per cent to 56 per cent; and to Winnipeg, it would be 
a change from 84 per cent to 63 per cent. 

While it is not suggested that the ton-mile rate is under every and all cir- 
cumstances a conclusive test, the percentages above given are at least signifi- 
cant as showing the reduction in the ratios between the ton-mile rates from 
Ontario points and the ton-mile rates from British Columbia points which 
would be brought about by the change suggested. 

In the submission filed, Emo, Ont., was referred to as having an advantage 
over the eastern canners. It is to be noted that while Emo is in the province 
of Ontario, it is on the Fort William subdivision of the Canadian National 
Railways, 188 miles east of Winnipeg, and is in the territory subject to the 
Prairie scale. In this territory, town or distributing tariffs on the basis of 85 
per cent of the standard tariffs are published. Emo, apparently, is not a gen- 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 111 

eral distributing point, but is a distributing point in so far at least as the com- 
modity herein is concerned. In connection with town tariffs, there are other 
points in the West which, instead of having the town tariff generally, have it 
for a specified commodity or commodities. 

The rate which is published from Emo to distributing centres in the Prairie 
Provinces is the fifth class distributing rate, with,, however, a, single minimum, 
of 40,000 pounds. Shipments from eastern Ontario points have a fifth-class 
rate very appreciably lower than the standard mileage. Emo being a point in 
territory covered by the Prairie scale and being given a, rate which, is on the 
general tariff basis, it does not appear that this treatment discriminates against 
points in Eastern Ontario. 

In summary form: — 

(1) The arrangement whereby the two sets of minima, apply from British 
Columbia points to Winnipeg is brought about, by competitive conditions. 

(2) These competitive conditions have a bearing upon the interior and 
intermediate points. 

(3) While these competitive conditions do not apply westward from Aylmer, 
this point and other Ontario points, has the advantage of water competition 
which is not open to the movement from British Columbia points. 

(4) The special competition complained of by eastern shippers is on the 
longer mileages. It is not shown that the difference in treatment, bearing in 
mind the circumstances which have brought, about the existing conditions, 
amounts to unjust discrimination or undue preference in regard to the longer 
mileage from the East. 

(5) The allegations that the existing rate structure has subjected Eastern 
shippers to a. detriment by permitting the British Columbia shippers to cut into 
the business was not established. 

A case for such action as asked for has not been made out. 

APPLICATION OF RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY OF WOLFE, P.Q., TG TELEPHONE SERVICE 
IN QUEBEC CENTRAL RAILWAY STATIONS 

Judgment of the Chief Commissioner, June 22, 1925, concurred in by the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner and Mr. Commissioner Boyce 

This is an application of certain citizens of the county of Wolfe, P.Q., for 
an order directing the Quebec Central Railway Company to install telephone 
service in its stations at Bishop's Crossing, Dudswell Junction and Marbleton. 

At the hearing in Montreal the matter was spoken to by Mr. Crepeau, who 
appeared for the applicants at Bishop's Crossing and Marbleton, and Mr. 
George Woods represented the Quebec Central Railway Company. The appli- 
cation was not pressed as far as concerns Dudswell Junction. 

The applicants relied in support of their motion upon subsection 2 of sec- 
tion 371 of the Railway Act of 1919, which reads: — 

" The Board may also upon the application of any interested party 
authorize any telephone company operated by any province, municipal- 
ity or incorporated company to install at its own expense telephone con- 
nection with any station of the company, the annual charge, if any, to 
be paid by the company for such service and all other terms or conditions 
connected therewith to be such as the Board may determine, having 
regard to all local conditions, but in no case is such charge to exceed the 
customary local rate." 

From the subsection above quoted, it is apparent that the Board is not 
empowered to direct a telephone company to install a service. Its power is 
simply to authorize said company to install such service. 



112 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The annual charge for the telephone connection, as well as whatever other 
terms and conditions the Board may deem necessary, are matters for consider- 
ation and determination by the Board. Consequently, the telephone company 
against which such order is sought should be notified to appear at the hearing 
at which such terms are discussed. From the wording of the subsection it is 
clear that the Board might authorize the telephone company to supply an instru- 
ment without any annual charge. 

No one appeared at the hearing for the telephone company, but a letter 
from the general manager was filed, in which he expressed a willingness to have 
the instrument installed, if somebody would pay for it. The whole dispute in 
this matter concerns the payment for the service applied for. The applicants 
ask that the railway company be ordered to have a telephone placed at the 
stations indicated, but say nothing as to who shall be liable for the service. 
The telephone company says it is willing to put in the service if somebody will 
pay for it. The railway company's answer is that it has no objection to the 
telephone being installed, but that it will not agree to pay for the service pro- 
vided, and the section of the Act above referred to throws the burden of deciding 
this question upon the Board. 

I do not think the Board has authority to direct the railway company to 
install the telephone service. The application should be to authorize the tele- 
phone company in question to install telephone connection in the stations men- 
tioned, and for general directions with reference to the annual charge and all other 
terms and conditions connected therewith, as indicated in subsection 2 of section 
371 of the Railway Act, and the telephone company should be notified to appear 
in answer to the application. While the absence of formalities is not regarded 
as serious, yet as the telephone company was not summoned to appear, and did 
not appear, at the argument, I feel, in the absence of anyone to speak for it, 
that no order should be made. 

The applications against the Quebec Central Railway Company must be 
refused. 

RE CANADIAN FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 17 

Judgment Assistant Chief Commissioner, June 15, 1925, concurred in by Mr. 
Commissioner Boyce, Mr. Commissioner Oliver dissenting. 



It became apparent some years ago that a revision of the Canadian Freight 
Classification was desirable, to take care of the many changes in transporta- 
tion and commercial conditions which had developed. The recommendations 
which have been brought about by commercial and transportation changes are 
indicated in a summary way by the fact that while the rules and ratings in the 
current Classification No. 16 comprise less than 100 pages, in the proposed 
Classification No. 17 they comprise 271 pages. 

The work of revision began in 1914. War conditions and other factors, 
including the amount of work involved, prevented the first proof of the Classi- 
fication No. 17 being filed with the Board until 1916. Since that date, there 
has been constant consideration of the matter. 

II 

On matters affecting general rate changes, the Board has more than once 
drawn attention to the fact that it is an advantageous procedure to exhaust the 
methods of conference before turning to the Board. Such procedure clarifies 
and defines the issue, and by bringing to the Board for its consideration the 
irreducible minimum of grievances the matter can be more clearly and expedi- 
tiously dealt with. i 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 113 

In matters concerned with classification, a similar procedure is advisable. 
Many technical terms and descriptions involved in connection with ratings 
affecting trade can be much better dealt with in conference than in a formal 
presentation of evidence; and a similar advantage attaches to the consideration 
of classification rules in conference as compared with having the whole matter 
brought into evidence. 

Having this in mmd, there was organized late in 1920 a special Classifica- 
tion Committee representative of Western and of Eastern Canada. In Eastern 
Canada, the committee was composed of the Chairman of the Canadian Freight 
Association; two representatives of the railways; and three representatives of 
the shipping public, composed of Messrs. J. K. Smith of the Montreal Board of 
Trade, T. Marshall of the Toronto Board of Trade, and S. B. Brown of the 
Canadian Manufacturers' Association. 

In the West, the committee was composed of the Chairman of the Canadian 
Freight Association at Winnipeg; two representatives of the railways; and 
Messrs. W. F. McClintock, representing the Associated Boards of Trade of 
British Columbia; J. FI. Hanna, the Associated Boards of Trade of Alberta; 
Alex. McDonald, the Associated Boards of Trade of Saskatchewan; and G. E. 
Carpenter, the Associated Boards of Trade of Manitoba. 

Approximately 150 days were taken up in meetings. A very large number 
of shippers' representatives attended these different meetings and diseased 
matters in which they were interested. As wide publicity as possible was given 
to the meetings. The result, as was anticipated, enabled through the use of 
round-table methods of discussion satisfactory conclusions to be arrived at in 
many cases. Where the matters were not so satisfactory, the procedure fol- 
lowed helped to more closely define the issue. 

Considering the nature of the work and the comprehensiveness of a docu- 
ment such as the Classification, the number of items in dispute, where certain 
individuals, firms or organizations are not in agreement with the Special Classi- 
fication Committee, are relatively very few. 

Ill 

Proposed Classification No. 17 was filed with the Board under date of April 
9, 1924, and notice respecting same was published in the Canada Gazette, as 
required under section 322 of the Railway Act, and, in addition, copies of the 
proposed Classification with copy of notice of it to the King's Printer, were 
mailed to the parties specified 'by the Board's General Orders Nos. 271, 348 
and 353, also to other parties to whom the Board have from time to time 
requested that such information be furnished, with request that their objec- 
tions, if any, be filed with the Board within thirty days. Subsequently, upon 
representations from certain parties in Western Canada, the date for the 'sub- 
mission of any objections was extended to May 19. 

IV 

Thereafter, there was set down for hearing on the Board's trip to Western 
Canada in June and July, 1924,- the matter of proposed Canadian Freight 
Classification No. 17, to afford an opportunity for anyone to speak to matters 
on which agreement had not been arrived at in the "conferences which had 
taken place. Except at Winnipeg, no question was raised by anyone as to their 
not having had ample opportunity to consider the changes proposed in Classi- 
fication No. 17. At Saskatoon, Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson and Lethbridge, 
there were no representations made to the Board objecting in any way to 
proposed Classification No. 17. At Edmonton, Calgary and Regina there were 
representations as to four or five individual items, which are herein dealt with 
under their appropriate headings. 

25486—8 



114 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



At the Winnipeg sittings, counsel for the Canadian Council of Agriculture 
claimed that it had not been afforded an opportunity of taking part in the con- 
ferences between the carriers and the shippers, and that there had not, there- 
tore, been an opportunity of fully "considering the changes proposed. 

Certainly the matter has had wide publicity. It may be noted that the 
Canadian Council of Agriculture was represented before the .Board when 
Freight Classification No. 17 was spoken to in Winnipeg in 1917. 

The exception taken related primarily to the " Mixing Rule," which is 
referred to later. Protests were also filed against the alleged increase in the 
rate-. In general terms, exceptions were taken to increases in ratings and in 
carload minima. These complaints were not specific except in one or two 
cases— a special example being Salt. Here, it may be noted that Classification 
Xo. 17 does not increase the rates or minimum weights to or between points in 
Western Canada on salt. 

Minimum weights are in various instances proposed to be increased. There 
arc a few exceptions where the matter stood to be dealt with by the Board. 
In the cases agreed upon, there is nothing in the allegations made to show that 
the increases were unreasonable, taking into consideration commercial condi- 
tions and increased power of car loading. In fact, the average loading approxi- 
mates closely the minimum weights proposed in Classification No. 17. 

V 

As to the various general and vague statements that changes in classifica- 
tion ratings increased the cost of goods and raised the cost of living, it may be 
pointed out that the revision of the Classification involves both increases and 
reductions, and from as careful an analysis as is possible with the information 
in the possession of the Board, it is believed that the revision, taken as a 
whole, in no way increases in the aggregate the cost of transporting goods, but 
fhat as a matter of fact it will pro'bably have the reverse effect. While the 
volume of traffic in the various articles affected is very controlling, as a matter 
of information it may be stated that, taking the Classification as a whole, the 
number of increases in less than carload ratings is 162; the number of increases 
in carload ratings is 177; the number of decreases in less than carload ratings 
is 344; the number of decreases in carload ratings is 194. Further, that with 
respect to the following distinctive headings the situation is: — 



Distinctive Heading 



Agricultural implements 

Cereals and cereal products 

Chemicals, drugs or medicines 

Dry goods 

Furniture 

( rroceries 

Hardware 

Iron or steel ' 

Machinery and machines 

Sheet metal ware 

Stationery 

Vehicles (not self-propelling) 

Vehicle parts (other than self-propelling vehicle parts) 
Wooden ware, or indurated ware 



Number of changes in 
Classification No. 17 



Increases 



L.C.L. C.L 



Decreases 
L.C.L. C.L 





2 

30 

1 

3 

22 

13 

8 



3 

1 

4 

2 





With regard to the increase in carload ratings, it may be explained that 
these do not all represent actual increases, for the reason that while in some 
cases the carload rating has been advanced the minimum carload weight has 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 115 

been reduced, so that the charge per car will be no greater than at present, 
and, in some instances, there will be a reduction. There are also instances 
where only one symbol indicating a change is shown but the item covers any- 
where from half a dozen to ten or twenty different articles or commodities. 

VI 

The Winnipeg Board of Trade filed with the Board objections to quite a 
number of items in proposed Classification No. 17, and at the suggestion of the 
.Board a conference was held, a few days prior to the hearing, between repre- 
sentatives of the Winnipeg Board of Trade and the carriers, attended by the 
Board's Chief Traffic Officer, at which all the contentious items were discussed 
.and satisfactorily adjusted. The carriers agreed in some instances to make the 
changes that were desired, and in other instances after discussion the represen- 
tatives of the shippers withdrew their requests. There was read into the record 
at the Winnipeg sittings the following letter covering confirmation of what is 
briefly referred to above: — 

" Winnipeg, Man., July 14, 1924. 

" To the Board of Railway Commissioners jor Canada. 

" Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — In the matter of proposed 
Freight Classification No. 17 and correspondence with your Board dated 
May 13, 15, 19 and 28, containing certain requests for additions and 
changes, also our revised list submitted June 9. We now advise that at 
a conference held at the Winnipeg Board of Trade offices Friday, July 
11, at which our interested shippers, representatives of the carriers, and 
your Chief Traffic Officer, Mr. W. E. Campbell, were present, all out- 
standing items were discussed and a satisfactory agreement arrived at. 

" The Shippers' Bureau of the Winnipeg Board of Trade therefore 
withdraw any and all objections to proposed Freight Classification No. 
17 as it is at present constituted, it being understood, however, that if 
any change in principle affecting western Canada is subsequently made, 
we wish to reserve the right to be heard. 

" Respectfully submitted, 

" WINNIPEG BOARD OF TRADE SHIPPERS' BUREAU, 

" H. E. Hamilton, 

" Transportation Secretary. 
11 J. F. Newson, 

" Chairman/' 

VII 

With regard to changes generally in proposed Classification No. 17, counsel 
for the Canadian Council of Agriculture called as witness Mr. Stimpson, super- 
intendent of traffic of the United Grain Growers, Limited. Mr. Stimpson made 
a general reference to the increase in minimum carload weights, which has 
already been above referred to. He stated that he could only speak with 
authority with regard to articles that were handled by his firm. Beyond that 
his evidence was based solely upon his general experience and opinion. As to 
articles generally, he stated he had no figures showing whether or not the new 
carload minimum weights were in excess of average loadings. Specifically, the 
only article on which he spoke with authority and in regard to which he had 
particular complaint as to the minimum weight, was barbed wire. This is later 
dealt with herein under its appropriate heading. (Section XXXIII.) 

25486— 8£ 



116 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

VIII 

Other items specifically brought up at the Winnipeg sittings are dealt with 
hereafter in their proper order. The complaints in eastern Canada, while more 
numerous than those submitted in the west, dealt with specific items only and 
not the general principle of Classification. These were heard at the sittings of 
the Board in Ottawa on December 3 and 4 last, and are dealt with under their 
individual headings. 

Consideration is given only to those specific items in respect to which 
objections were filed with the Board. The balance of the proposed Classification 
represents continuance of the present ratings and provision for new articles, as 
well as increases and reductions. The Classification, as submitted, represents 
the work of the joint committee of shippers and carriers and naturally contains 
compromises and, perhaps, some inconsistencies. In dealing with the items 
specifically referred to, therefore, it should be understood that the Board, in 
approving the balance of the Classification as submitted, does not prejudice the 
rights of anyone, and it is always open to any party to launch formal application 
or complaint regarding any matter of Classification not herein dealt with, or 
with respect to alleged unjust discrimination, or any other relevant feature. 

IX 

THE MIXING RULE 

The most contentious matter submitted to the Board in the prairie provinces 
related to the rule governing different articles shipped in mixed carloads at 
carload rate, known as the "mixing rule." Consequently, it appears desirable 
to review the history of this rule. 

There is not in the records of the Board a complete file of the Canadian 
Freight Classification, but No. 9 of June 1, 1893, provided that, — 

" When a num'ber of different articles of the same class in carloads 
embraced in one line of trade are shipped at one time by one shipper to 
one consignee at one point of delivery, in full carloads, they shall be taken 
at the rate per hundred pounds for such class in carloads. This rule will 
not apply on mixed shipments of groceries, hardware, dry goods, iron, etc., 
but only to different articles of one straight line of trade." 

By November 15, 1894, the restriction as to one line of trade was abolished 
and the Classification rule permitted the shipment of different articles of the 
same class in carloads at the rate for such class in carloads; also, articles 
provided with ratings in different classes could be shipped in mixed carloads at 
the carload rate and minimum carload weight of the article in the highest class 
contained in such mixed carload. 

In Classification No. 10-A, effective September 1, 1897, the rule as to mixed 
carloads was the same as last above mentioned, with the slight modification 
that in the case of mixed cars of freight, classified 5th and higher, having a 
minimum of less than 20,000 pounds, such as woodenware, furniture, etc., the 
minimum for the mixed carload would be 20,000 pounds at the highest class 
rate. 

The foregoing rule, which permitted unrestricted mixing, was modified 
February 1, 1902, by an amendment to Classification No. 11. The rule as to 
mixing was again restricted and amended to read as follows: — 

Rule 2. — (1) When two or more articles enumerated under one dis- 
tinctive heading are provided with a C.L. rating they will be accepted in 
mixed carloads at the highest carload rate and the highest minimum 
weight of any article in the shipment, or if of the same class at the rate 
for that class; but articles under different headings must not be taken in 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 117 

mixed carloads. When any straight shipment of one class equals or 
exceeds the minimum C.L. weight, C.L. rate for such lot will apply, and 
the other articles will take the L.G.L. rate to which they belong. But the 
articles comprised in any one of the following groups, although appearing 
under different headings in the classification, will be accepted in mixed 
carloads subject to the above conditions: — 

(a) Agricultural implements, as per pages 11 to 13 of the classifica- 
tion or as amended in this circular, also including churns, engines, 
portable or traction, when shipped with threshers. 

(b) Ale, beer, porter, cider, aerated or mineral waters, wines and 
liquors. 

(c) Butter, cheese and eggs. 

(d) Crockery, stoneware, plumbers' crockery, earthenware, glassware, 
slate washtubs, slate sinks and slabs. 

(e) Electrical goods and dynamos. 
(/) Flax, tow and oakum. 

(g) Groceries, as per pages 14 and 15 of this circular. 

(h) Hardware, iron and wire, as specified on pages 15 and 16 of this 

circular. 
(?) Machinery, including boilers and smokestacks; also dairy 

machinery, such as cheese presses, milk vats, curd sinks, curd 

mills, Babcock testers and weighing cans. 
ij) Paper, stationery, ink. 

(k) Stone, marble and granite. i 

(I) Stoves, etc., as per page 73 of classification, or as amended in 

this circular, including radiators, registers, tinware, stamped ware, 

enameled ware and agateware, 
(m) Trunks and valises. 
(n) Woodenware, as per page 84 of classification, or as amended in 

this circular, also including brooms in bundles or boxes, clothes 

pins, washboards, wood dishes and mop sticks. 

Up to this time the classification rule, whether with an open or a restricted 
mixture, was uniform throughout Canada, and of course the rules above quoted 
were contained in the classification prior to the creation of this Board or the 
enactment of the Railway Act of 1903. 

The first classification submitted for the approval of the Board was No. 12, 
which had already taken effect May 1, 1903. This was considered at length at 
the Board's first sittings in Toronto in June, 1904. The mixing rule contained 
therein was the same as that of No. 11 as amended, and above quoted, except 
that it may be mentioned that in classification No. 12 there were additional 
distinctive headings provided for beyond the list contained in No. 11 and above 
set out. 

The representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at the 
Toronto sittings in 1904 argued for the restoration of the unrestricted mixing 
rule throughout Canada. Subsequently there was a conference between the 
representatives of the carriers and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, 
and a compromise was agreed upon between those parties and submitted to the 
Board for approval under which the unrestricted mixing rule would apply east 
of Port Arthur and the restricted mixing, or distinctive heading list system, in 
the west, also on shipments from the east to the west and vice versa. It was 
understood that the purpose of this compromise was to continue the adjustment 
whereby the jobbers at Winnipeg and other western points would be able to do 



118 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

business in competition with their more powerful competitors in the east. On 
July 16. 1904, the Board issued an order stating: — 

" That Freight Classification known as Canadian Freight Classifica- 
tion No. 12, bearing date May 1, 1903, with Supplement No. 1 thereto 
and special Ruling Circular No. 1, subject to the modifications and excep- 
tions mentioned herein, be, and the same is hereby, legalized and 
sanctioned until such time as the Board shall revise, alter or amend the 
same." 

In pursuance of this order, effective on August 1, 1904, the mixing rule was 
consequently changed and between points east of Port Arthur the rule was 
again the same as in Classification No. 10-A above referred to, while west of 
Port Arthur and on shipments between the east and west, the provisions of Rule 
2 of Classification No. 11 as above quoted were still applicable, as modified by 
the order of July 16, 1904. Except for minor changes this mixing rule has been 
continuously in effect from 1904 to date, but as there have been some changes in 
phraseology it is perhaps desirable to set out the exact wording of the present 
rule of Canadian Freight Classification No. 16, which is as follows: — 

Ride 2. — (b) On shipments between points east of Port Arthur, 
Ontario (except petroleum, lubricating oil, benzine, gasoline, naphtha, 
varnish and turpentine in barrels unless enumerated under one distinctive 
heading — and live stock) the following rule will govern mixed carloads: — 

" When a number of different articles of the same class in carloads 
are shipped at one time on one bill of lading by one consignor to one 
consignee and destination they will be charged the rate for such class in 
carloads and at the highest minimum carload weight prescribed for any 
of the articles in the car (actual or estimated weight to be charged for if 
in excess of the minimum weight) except as provided in Rule 1-C. When 
a number of different articles of more than one class in carloads are 
shipped at one time on one bill of lading by one consignor to one con- 
signee and destination, the carload rate and minimum carload weight of 
the article in the highest class shall apply on all the articles that make 
up the carload (actual or estimated weight to be charged for if in excess 
of the minimum weight) except as provided in Rule 1-C, and also 
excepting that if the aggregate charge upon the entire shipment is less on 
basis of carload rate and minimum carload weight (actual or estimated 
w T eight if in excess of the minimum weight) for one or more of the articles 
and on basis of actual or estimated weight at less than carload rate or 
rates for the other article or articles, the shipment will be charged accord- 
ingly. In the case of a mixed carload of 5th and higher class freight, 
having a minimum of less than 20,000 pounds, the minimum weight for 
the mixed car shall be 20,000 pounds at the highest class rate. 

"(c) On shipments between points west of and including Port Arthur, 
Ontario, and from points east of Port Arthur, Ontario, to Port Arthur, 
Ontario, and points west thereof and vice versa. (See note.) 

" Articles under different distinctive headings will not be taken in 
mixed carloads at carload rates. 

" When articles under one distinctive heading .are of the same class 
C.L., the carload rating and highest minimum weight for such class will 
apply. 

" When two or more articles enumerated under one distinctive head- 
ing are provided with different C.L. ratings they will be accepted in 
mixed carloads at the highest carload rate and the highest minimum 
weight applicable on any article in the shipment. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 119 

" When a shipment of one commodity, or a shipment of different 
articles under one distinctive heading and subject to the same carload 
rating, equals or exceeds the minimum carload weight, then the C.L. 
rating for such lot will apply, and any other article not of the same 
class, or not under the same distinctive heading, loaded in the same car 
(or cars), will take the L.C.L. rate of the class to which it belongs. 

" Note. — The distinctive headings referred to are shown in black 
face type— as " Agricultural Implements," " Hardware," etc. 

" The foregoing portions of this rule are subject to the conditions 
of Rule 3 with respect to shipments aggregating more than one carload." 

In the twenty years from 1904 to 1924, there have been only two com- 
plaints against the mixing rule as existing west of Fort William and Port 
Arthur, and these were launched by firms shipping from Eastern Canada. 

By 1916 the carriers had completed tentatively the work of revision of 
the Canadian Freight Classification and a proof of same was submitted to the 
Board under date of July 15, 1916. Wide publicity was given to boards of 
trade and shippers' organizations throughout the country. The mixing rule 
that was contained in this proposed classification read as follows: — 

" Rule 7. 

"Section 1. Except as provided in Rule 10, carload ratings apply 
only when a carload of freight is shipped from one station, in or on one 
car (except as provided in Rule 8), in one day, by one shipper for 
delivery to one consignee at one destination. Only one bill of lading 
from one loading point and one freight bill shall be issued for such car- 
load shipment. The minimum carload weight provided is the lowest 
weight on which the carload rating will be computed. 

" Section 2. (a) When different articles (provided with carload 
ratings) of the same class are shipped from one station, in or on one 
car, in one day, by one shipper, for delivery to one consignee at one 
destination, in carloads, they will be charged at the rate for such class 
and at the highest minimum weight prescribed for any of the articles; 
actual weight to be charged for if in excess of the minimum weight 
(except as provided in section 2 (6) of this rule). Unless otherwise 
provided in the classification, any article not of the same class loaded 
in or on same car will take the L.C.L. rate of the class to which it 
belongs, except as provided in section 3 of this rule. 

"(6) If the aggregate charge upon any mixed carload shipment of 
the same class is less on basis of C.L. rate and minimum carload weight 
(actual weight if in excess of minimum weight) for one or more of the 
articles, plus actual or established weight at L.C.L. rate or rates for the 
other article or articles, the shipment will be charged accordingly. 

" Section 3. When the same article, which on account of shipping 
conditions or values, is provided with different carload ratings, it may 
be accepted in mixed carloads at the highest carload rate and the highest 
minimum weight provided therefor." 

It will be observed that this provided for a uniform mixing rule throughout 
Canada and a wide open mixture of different articles of the same class. This 
was an open mixture rule of substantially the character that the Board is now 
urged to direct by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and others in Western 
Canada. The foregoing rule was objected to by shipping interests in both 
Eastern and Western Canada, and does not appear from the Board's records 
to have been endorsed or approved of by any shipper, board of trade, or ship- 
pers' organization. The Board allowed a considerable length of time for all 



120 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

parties to conisder the changes proposed and granted various extensions up to 
March 31. 1917, for the filing of submissions. A representative resolution from 
Western Canada, dated at Regina, March 14, 1917, reads: — 

" Resolution 
" Classification No. 17 

"1. This conference, comprised of delegates from the Boards of 
Trade of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Yorkton, Swift Cur- 
rent, Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, and Medicine Hat, the Prairie 
Provinces Branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the 
-katchewan Retail Merchants' Association, the Saskatoon Whole- 
salers Association, has been called together to consider Proposed Cana- 
dian Freight Classification No. 17; 

''2. After careful consideration and a full discussion of the subject, 
this conference places itself on record as being strongly opposed to the 
principles embodied in said Proposed Classification No. 17 inasmuch 
as it suggests a uniform classification throughout Canada, and fails to 
take into account conditions, both geographical and industrial, which 
are materially different east of Fort William and west of Fort William; 

"'3. Further this conference is strongly of the opinion, that at the 
present time, when the time and the energy of our Canadian business 
men are so seriously taxed in dealing with the many intricate problems 
precipitated by the war, it is not fitting that they should be called upon 
to consider a re-vision of the Canadian Freight Classification; 

"4. Inasmuch as Western Canadian business has been built up on 
the principles embodied in Canadian Freight Classification No. 16, and 
as any material change therein would seriously disturb the whole econ- 
omic situation in the West; 

"5. Therefore, this conference unanimously recommends that said 
Classification No. 16 be continued in effect." 

A memorandum of conference of representative shipping associations in 
Eastern Canada, elated at Toronto, March 27, 1917, reads: — 

" Proposed Canadian Freight Classification No. 17 

" In connection with the communication from the Board of Rail- 
way Commissioners of February 12, in which direction is made that any 
objections to the rules and conditions of carriage in proposed Canadian 
Freight Classification No. 17, shall be filed with the Board prior to 
March 31. 

" A conference was held in Toronto on March 27, at which were present 
representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Boards of 
Trade of Belleville, Brantford, Hamilton, Kitchener, London, Montreal and 
Toronto, The Fruit Growers' Association of Ontario, and individual shippers 
and manufacturers, to consider the action to be taken in regard thereto. 

" After careful consideration it was unanimously decided that — 

1. The changes proposed by the railways are drastic, and seem to be quite 

unfitted to the commercial conditions obtaining in Canada, both East 
and West of Port Arthur. They appear to have been framed largely 
on conditions existing in the United States, which, owing to the differ- 
ence in the volume of traffic and greater population, are dissimilar. 

2. No effort has been made on the part of the railwaj^s to ascertain from 

shippers and manufacturers what effect the proposed rules and con- 
ditions of carriage would have on the business of Eastern and W r estern 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 121 

Canada; in fact they have stated to the Board that they are unable to 
say, with any degree of accuracy, what the results would be. 

3. While shippers are unable to determine, generally, the effect the changes 

will have on their business, they are fully convinced that the adop- 
tion of many of the proposed rules would be disastrous to Canadian 
trade, which has been built up under the present conditions of carriage. 

4. The present is not an opportune time to consider such sweeping changes 

in transportation conditions. Under the present stress of business 
shippers and manufacturers should not be called upon to consider the 
proposition in the manner and form in which it is submitted, with the 
acknowledged lack of information. 

5. It is impossible to tell what the commercial conditions will be after 

the war, and it is, therefore, respectfully requested that the Board 
direct that the principles of the rules and conditions of carriage of 
Canadian Freight Classification No. 16 be continued." 

Many other boards of trade, and individual shippers, filed submissions with 
the Board concurring in the above quoted resolutions from Western and Eastern 
Canada, and many of these referred particularly and specifically to the mixing 
rule and urged that no change be made therein. Subsequently, sittings were 
held in both Eastern and W T estern Canada and objections to the proposed 
mixing rule were made at every point at which the Board sat. These hearings 
except for the one at Fort William, culminated with the sittings at Winnipeg 
on June 22, 1917. As already stated, objections to the mixing rule had been 
voiced all over the country. Former Chief Commissioner Drayton dealing 
with the question of the mixing rule stated (p. 2243) : — 

11 The Chief Commissioner: I may say so far that neither Dr. 
McLean nor myself can see any justification for the claim that traffic 
conditions are exactly the same as they are in the east and that eastern 
rules can be applied to the west without great disadvantage to the west. 
In other words, we do not see that the general classification, the eastern 
classification, can with fairness to the west be extended into western 
territory." 

The Chief Commissioner stated to representatives of shippers that they 
should go over these trade lists in conference with representatives of the car- 
riers. Again, at p. 2244, the Chief Commissioner stated: — 

" The Chief Commissioner: With regard to mixing, the trade 
interests in the West, so far as we have been able to understand, unani- 
mously are against it. So far as the mixing privilege is concerned, the 
whole of the west think it will destroy their business as they have built 
it up. As far as that particular matter is concerned, we have come to 
the conclusion that the adoption of the ordinary rule applying universally 
in the east, applying as it does in the Western and Eastern States as well, 
— that that rule cannot be adopted in Western Canada without detri- 
ment to Western Canada, therefore we are not disposed to give any 
effect to that rule. That is as plain as I can make it." 

It may be here noted that the Saskatchewan Retail Merchants' Association 
were parties to the Regina resolution of March 14, 1917, above quoted. At 
the Winnipeg sittings of June, 1917, there were also represented the Saskatche- 
wan Grain Growers' Association; the Manitoba Retail Merchants Association; 
the Canadian Council of Agriculture; the Retail Merchants' Association of 
Canada (Manitoba Branch). No representations were made on behalf of these 
organizations in support of the open mixing rule which was provided for in 
the Classification that was then before the Board for consideration and which 



122 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

is now applied for by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It is manifest 
that what was involved in the mixing rule was a matter of knowledge. 

Following these hearings and acting on the Board's suggestion, the carriers 7 
representatives conferred with various shipping and trade organizations inter- 
ested in different lines of trade with the idea of having these interested parties 
agree as far as possible on the details of the proposed Classification, after which 
there would require to be further discussion before the Board, which would 
then be in a position to decide on further procedure. 

On March 8, 1921. the Canadian Freight Association filed with the Board 
revised proposed rules and conditions of carriage, stating that these had resulted 
l'rom joint conferences between western interests and the western carriers, and 
eastern interests and the eastern carriers, and there was no division of opinion 
or controversy as between the eastern and western interests in connection with 
any of the rules with the exception of the so-called mixing rule — rule No. 10. 
Application was therefore made that the matter of the mixing rule be set down 
for hearing by the Board at various points. The rule as contained in this 
revision read: — 

" Except as otherwise provided, when a number of different articles, 
for which carload ratings are provided, are shipped at one time by one 
consignor to one consignee and destination, in a carload, they will be 
charged at carload rate applicable to the highest classed article, and 
the carload minimum weight will be the highest provided for any of the 
articles in the carload." 

Proof copies of these proposed rules and conditions of carriage were distributed 
to boards of trade and other organizations named in the Board's General Order 
No. 271, located at points in Eastern and Western Canada, and also to all 
subscribers to the Canadian Freight Classification, which embraced some thou- 
sands of names of firms and individuals. Thereafter, the matter was set down 
to be spoken to at the sittings of the Board during the month of April, 1921, 
at Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Brandon and 
Winnipeg. At these various hearings all the submissions that were made to 
the Board with regard to the mixing rule were in opposition to the open mixing 
rule as proposed, and the submissions were all to the effect that the restricted 
or distinctive heading mixing rule as now in effect should be continued. Ample 
opportunity was given for any desired submissions to the Board and there were 
none presented in favour of the open rule above quoted. At the Winnipeg sit- 
tings April 27, 1921, the Board was advised that at a conference held in Winni- 
peg April 26, 1921, to discuss proposed rules of the Canadian Freight Classifi- 
cation, at which the following organizations were represented: Brandon Board 
of Trade; Calgary Board of Trade; Canadian Manufacturers' Association; 
Edmonton Board of Trade; Lethbridge Board of Trade; Montreal Board of 
Trade; Moose Jaw Board of Trade; Regina Board of Trade; Saskatoon Chamber 
of Commerce; Toronto Board of Trade; Vancouver Board of Trade; Winnipeg 
Board of Trade. 

The following was adopted in the form of a resolution: — 

" 1. It was decided that in the best interests of both Eastern and 
Western Canada rule 2 and the trade lists of the present classification 
should be continued and substituted for proposed rule 10 of Canadian 
Freight Classification No. 17. 

" 2. It was also decided that a classification committee representing 
Western Boards of Trade or other business organizations and railways be 
named to consult with the present Eastern Classification Committee in 
connection with the provisions of the new classification. 

" 3. It was further the opinion of the meeting that there should be 
no disturbance at the present time in the present class rate relationships 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 123 

now existing in Eastern and Western Canada as a result of the finding of 
the Board of Railway Commissioners in the inquiries conducted in the 
Eastern and Western Rate Cases and orders issued in relation thereto, or 
subsequent orders. 

" 4. The chairman of this meeting was instructed to submit a copy 
of this resolution to the Board of Railway Commissioners to-morrow." 

The foregoing was unanimously agreed to by all the organizations repre- 
sented, with the exception of the Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce and the Van- 
couver Board of Trade. It was explained, however, that so far as the retention 
of the classification mixing rule was concerned, the Saskatoon Chamber of Com- 
merce was in favour of it. The representative of the Vancouver Board of Trade 
stated that he could not vote on the resolution until it had been submitted to 
this Board for their consideration and action. 

The proposed mixing rule had been listed for hearing in Western Canada 
for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people there, and, as already stated, 
all the submissions were against the proposed rule and in favour of the continu- 
ance of the present one. The Board made no direction in the matter, but carry- 
ing out the resolution submitted at the Winnipeg hearing, as above quoted, the 
Special Classification Committees went to work and entirely revised the Classi- 
fication, and in doing so worked along the lines of continuing the present regula- 
tions governing mixed carloads. There was a great deal of work involved, and 
many meetings were held, and under date of April 9, 1924, there was submitted 
to the Board for approval proposed Canadian Freight Classification No. 17 cor- 
rected. Proposed rule 10 — the mixing rule — reads: — 

" Applicable between Points East op Port Arthur and Armstrong, 

Ont. 

"Section 1. — Unless otherwise provided, when a number of different 
articles, for which carload ratings are provided, are shipped at one time 
by one consignor to one consignee and destination, in a carload (see rule 
9), they will be charged at the carload rate applicable to the highest 
classed article, and the carload minimum weight will be the highest pro- 
vided for any of the articles in the carload. 

" Applicable between Points West of and Including Pcrt Arthur 
and Armstrong, Ont., and from Points East thereof to Port 
Arthur and Armstrong, Ont., and Points West thereof and 
Vice Versa. 
"Section 2. — Unless otherwise provided, articles under different distinc- 
tive headings (see note) or articles that are not classified under distinctive 
headings will not be taken in mixed carloads at carload rates. When a 
number of different articles under one distinctive heading, for which car- 
load ratings are provided, are shipped at one time by one consignor to 
one consignee and destination, in a carload (see rule 9), they will be 
charged at the carload rate applicable to the highest classed article and 
the carload minimum weight will be the highest provided for any of the 
articles in the carload. 

"Section 3.— Subject to the conditions of sections 1 and 2, when the 
aggregate charge upon the entire shipment is made lower by considering 
the articles as if they were divided into two or more separate carloads, 
the charges on each separate carload will be based upon the carload rate 
applicable to the highest classed or rated article therein and the highest 
carload minimum weight provided for any of the articles therein. 

"Section 4. — Subject to the conditions of sections 1 and 2, when the 
aggregate charge upon the entire shipment is less on basis of carload rate 



124 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

and minimum carload weight (actual or authorized estimated weight to 
be charged for if in excess of the minimum weight) for one or more of 
the articles and on basis of actual or authorized estimated weight at less 
than carload rate or rates for the other article or articles, the shipment 
will be charged for accordingly. 

rt The distinctive headings referred to in section 2 are shown in 
capital letters, as 'Agricultural Implements/ ' Groceries/ ' Hardware/ etc. 

" Note. — Rule 10 will not apply upon shipments of live stock. 

" Rule 10 will not apply to carload shipments moving at commodity 
rates, except where commodity tariffs otherwise provide. 

" Packages containing articles of more than one class will be rated 
in accordance with terms of rule 16, section 3." 

The Board's regulations call for wide publicity being given to changes in 
classification that are filed with it for approval, and numerous written submis- 
sions were received by the Board dealing with the mixing rule. These were all 
from individuals and organizations in the Prairie Provinces of Western Canada, 
the two largest organizations making representations being the United Grain 
( \ rowers, Limited, and the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It is very evident 
from the majority of these submissions that there is a good deal of misunder- 
standing both as to the present and proposed rule relating to mixed carloads. 

In the protests made by various individuals and smaller organizations there 
^vas shown a lack of exact understanding as to what was involved. In general, 
the majority complaining took 1 the position that there was being taken away 
from the West a mixing system and advantages thereunder which it had for- 
merly enjoyed. As already indicated, the mixing rule is of long standing and 
it is not proposed to interfere with it. 

As a matter of fact the enlargement of the distinctive lists in proposed 
Classification No. 17 goes a long way toward a more open mixture, and will 
enable a much wider mixture than at present exists; for example, the present 
classification embraces some 250 articles under the heading of groceries, *md pro- 
posed classification No. 17 increases this to some 625 articles. Similarly, the 
hardware list is increased from a mixture of 880 articles to 1,429. Again, under 
the mixing rule applied for there would not be possible a mixture of boots and 
shoes, dry goods, groceries, and hardware, because while the carload rating on 
the groceries and hardware might be fifth class, the rating on boots and shoes 
would be third class, and there is no carload rating for dry goods. As under 
the open rule that is sought by these applicants the rating for a mixed carload 
i-- that of the highest classed article contained in the mixture, obviously the 
inclusion of boots and shoes and dry goods in mixed cars would be prohibitive. 
The obvious misunderstanding could be commented upon at considerably greater 
length but this would seem to be unnecessary. 

On its western trip in the months of June and July, 1924, the matter of pro- 

[ Classification 17 was set down so that all matters outstanding might be 
spoken to. All who had filed submissions were notified of the places of meeting. 
It was not until the Board was holding sittings in Winnipeg, on July 14 to 16, 
1924, that representations objecting to the continuance of the mixing rule were 
made. The Retail Merchants' Association, the United Grain Growers, Limited, 
and the Canadian Council of Agriculture co-operated in these representations. 

The Manitoba Branch of the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada 
alleged that the abolition of the present mixing rule and adoption of the open 
rule would enable small communities to bring in mixed carloads at the carload 
rate. 

The United Grain Growers, Limited, by Mr. Stimpson, argued for the open 
rule, on the ground that it existed in Eastern Canada as well as in the territory 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 125 

covered by the Western Classification. He also contended that it would help 
the small 'merchants, consumers, and particularly the farming community. 

The evidence given by Mr. Stimpson in regard to what he contended would 
be the beneficial effect® of the "open" rule in the West was based entirely on 
his experience with binder twine and barbed wire. He was of opinion that in 
regard to these commodities there might be shipment in mixed carloads which 
would save some distribution thereof at the less than carload rate; but he did 
not feel justified in going farther than a mere expression of opinion. So far as 
general retail business was concerned and the effect of the "open" rule thereon, 
Mr. Stimpson very frankly admitted, under cross-examination by Mr. Hanna, 
that he had no detailed knowledge of the retail business and how it would be 
affected by the "open" rule as against the present mixing rule. 

In dealing with classification, the Railway Act while making; uniformity 
the ideal recognizes that absolute uniformity may not bo justifiable. Section 
322 (1) provides:— 

"The tariffs of tolls, for freight traffic shall be subject to and gov- 
erned by that classification which the Board may prescribe or authorize, 
and the Board shall endeavour to have such classification uniform^ through- 
out Canada, as far as may be, having due regard to all proper interests 1 " 
The words I have underlined above are significant. 

The fact that the " open " rule applies east of the Great Lakes creates no 
presumption that it should for that reason apply west of the Great Lakes, 
unless this is justifiable " having regard to all proper interests." 

It is further to be noted, in accordance with the lines of guidance indicated 
in the section, that the class rate scales, which are governed by the Canadian 
Classification, do not carry the same relationship between classes in the West 
as prevails in the East. For example, in the East, 5th class is half the 1st; in 
the West, 4th class is half the 1st. 

The adoption of the present mixing rule in the West is, as is abundantly 
evidenced, an outcome of adjustment to trade conditions in the West. This 
has ibeen most urgently urged by these "trade interests." It is not a matter 
in which the railways are really interested. As I understand their position, it 
is a matter of relative indifference to them which rule is adopted in the West. 
Their concern is simply adequancy of revenue. When a practice which has 
been in existence for years, and which was installed at the instance of the ship- 
ping public, is attacked, a special burden of proof is on those so attacking. A 
considerable part of what was advanced was based on misapprehension. In 
so far as there was specific evidence — and it was. meagre — it fell far short of 
being conclusive. 

It is not the function of the Board to tear up rate and rating adjustments 
regardless of the effect of such rearrangements. Especially is it true that when 
rating arrangements and rules thereunder, have grown up not only with the 
support but also as the result of the insistent demand of the great generality 
of the shipping public engaged in distributive merchandising, the Board should 
interfere not because of conjecture but because of actual proven unreasonable- 
ness or unjust discrimination. No evidence justifying such conclusions in regard 
to the present rule has been adduced. 

X 

Rule 7 

This is the rule relating to graduated increased minimum carload weights 
for box cars over 36 feet 6 inches in length and flat or gondola cars over 36 feet 
10 inches in length; that is to say, with respect to articles subject to this rule 
the minimum carload weight specified therefor in the Classification only governs 



126 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

when loaded in cars not exceeding the lengths just mentioned, and when loaded 
in longer cars they are subject to a higher minimum weight. The corresponding 
provision at present in Classification No. 16 is rule No. 1. At present the 
increased graduated minimum carload weights apply to ail freight. In pro- 
posed Classification No, 17 the rule will apply only on those articles specifically 
made subject to the provisions of rule 7, which means that under the provisions 
of Classification No. 17 the rule will have a very much more restricted applica- 
tion as, speaking generally, it is only freight of light and bulky character that is 
ma ile subject to the rule. This material change is to the advantage of the 
shipper, because it removes all possible ground for controversy and applies the 
same minimum weight whether loaded in a 36 foot or 50 foot car with respect 
all freight not made subject to the rule. 

It was contended by the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and the Dominion 
Canners Limited that there should be incorporated in this Rule a provision that 
when a 36 foot 6 inch car is ordered and a 40 foot car is supplied the minimum of 
the 36 foot 6 inch car should be protected. On the record this is the practice. 
Where, however, the shipper uses the entire space in the car, the' minimum of 
the car used applies. No evidence showing grievances in regard to this matter 
was filed. 

The rule may be approved subject to the right of any shipper affected to 
bring the question of reconsideration up at any time. 

XI 

Rule 13 

Section 2 of proposed rule 13 reads: — 

" When freight is loaded in a car by shipper and such car is not fully 
loaded but is tendered as a carload shipment, and the car is forwarded 
without other freight therein, the shipment will be 'charged for as a car- 
load." 

Representative of the Goodtyear Tire and Rubber Company, Limited, 
Toronto, expressed the opinion that the foregoing provision was not clear, and 
asked who was to judge whether the freight was a carload or a less than carload 
shipment. 

The principle of the rule itself, as proposed, was not objected to. It would 
appear that the rule as proposed is clear in wording and intent. At the same 
time, the doubt raised will be fully met by adding after the word "tendered," 
which is the tenth word in the second line of the proposed rule, the following 
voids " by the shipper." 

Section 3 of proposed rule 13 reads: — 

" Unless otherwise provided, owners are required to load into or on 
cars and to unload from cars all freight carried at carload ratings." 

In connection with the foregoing provision the representative of the Goodyear 
Tire and Rubber Co., Limited, Toronto, raised the question as to the respon- 
sibility of the carriers in connection with the protection of the freight during pro- 
cess of loading or unloading. In the case of goods in carloads shipped from or 
destined to a private siding or station, wharf, or landing where there is no duly 
authorized agent, the provisions of section 6 of the bill of lading are pertinent, 
viz: — 

" Goods in carloads shipped from a private siding or a station, wharf, 
or landing, where there is no duly authorized agent, shall be at the risk 
of the owner until the car is lifted or bill of lading is issued by the carrier, 
and thereafter shall be at the risk of the carrier. Goods in carloads 
destined to a private siding, or station, wharf, or landing, where there is 
no duly authorized agent, shall be at the risk of the carrier until placed 
on the delivery siding." 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 127 

With regard to public delivery or team tracks, it was very clearly and defi- 
nitely stated by the representatives of the carriers that present practices would 
not be disturbed. The representative of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Com- 
pany, Limited, stated, at p. 9706, that if present practices were not to be changed 
he had no objection to the rule. 

The question of the railways supplying checkers on team tracks, while not 
relevant to classification, was injected into the discussion. This matter is gov- 
erned by the circular of instructions issued some year ago under the direction 
of the Board; and there was at the hearing an undertaking of Mr. Ransom that 
the practice was not being changed. 

Some suggestion was made that Rule 13 might conflict with the rule 11, sec- 
tion 5, dealing with " follow lots," Mr. Ransom is clearly on record that the 
owners would not be required to load the excess or " follow lot " into cars, and 
that the provisions of section 2 of rule 13 would not be applicable. 

Subject to specific complaint on evidence adduced, the rule may be allowed. 

XII 

Rule 15 

At the Winnipeg sittings reference was made to proposed rule 15 — known 
,as the minimum charge rule — reading: — 

" The minimum charge for a single shipment of less than carload 
freight between any two stations of one carrier will be 100 pounds at 
first class rate but not less than fifty (50) cents." 

Mr. Stimpson, of the United Grain Growers, Limited, suggested the adoption 
of the rule in effect in the Consolidated Freight Classification in the United 
States, which provides, in substance, for the minimum charge to be computed 
at 100 pounds at the class rate applicable, but in no case less than fifty cents. 
In other words, under the Canadian rule the charge is 100 pounds at first class 
rate on second or third class, etc., freight, while under the American rule the 
charge would be 100 pounds at second or third class as the case may be, subject 
to the 50-cent minimum. Mr. Stimpson stated that the change suggested would 
be of advantage to them in connection with shipments of car liners and empty 
sacks. The rule as proposed in Classification No. 17 is not on any way changed 
from that at present in effect, and in principle this rule has been in effect for 
the past forty years, during which period there have been only one or two 
complaints against it. The Special Classification Committee composed of 
representatives of both carriers and shippers agreed unanimously on the rule as 
contained in proposed Classification No. 17. The matter was not sufficiently 
developed in evidence at Winnipeg to enable the Board on the present record to 
give careful consideration to a suggested change and reach a definite conclusion 
with regard thereto. The matter may be left open for applicants or anyone 
else to launch formal complaint at any time to enable it to be thoroughly 
developed, thus enabling intelligent consideration and determination by the 
Board, which is not possible on the meagre record now before it. 

XIII 

Bags and Bagging 

Page 50, Items 30 and 40 

Complaint of Security Cartage and Storage Company, Limited, Calgary, Alta. 

(File 33365.34). 
Bags and bagging, cotton, jute or linen, are under the distinctive headings 
of " Groceries " and " Hardware " in Classification No. 16. In Classification 



128 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

No. 17 these articles are provided for on ,p. 50 under their alphabetical heading, 
consequently will not mix, in the territory described in section 2 of rule 10, in 
carloads of groceries and hardware. The Security Cartage and Storage Com- 
pany, of Calgary, in a letter dated May 15, 1924, objected to the proposed 
change, desiring continuance of bags and bagging under the distinctive headings 
referred to. 

The Winnipeg Board of Trade made a similar request, but at conference 
held between representatives of the interested shippers and the railway companies 
at- Winnipeg on July 11, this request was withdrawn by the shippers' repre- 
sentatives, so that aside from the protest of the Security Cartage and Storage 
Company, there is no objection before the Board to the proposed Classification 
provision. 

Although notified of the sittings at Calgary on July 7, 1924, at which 
proposed Canadian Freight Classification No. 17 was listed for hearing to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to speak to matters on which agreement had 
not been arrived at, the Security Cartage and Storage Company did not appear 
nor make any representations to the Board. The proposed Classification 
provision being acceptable to the hardware and grocery trades, and complainants 
not having taken advantage of the opportunity afforded them of developing in 
what manner they are interested or affected, the provision shown in Classifica- 
tion Xo. 17 for bags and bagging may be approved. 

XIV 

Carload Ratings on Baskets 

Page 52, Items 5-7-16-18 

Complaint of Canada Wood Products Company, St. Thomas, Ont. 

(File 33365.38) 

The complaint is with respect to carload ratings only. At the present time 
baskets, all kinds, C.L., are rated 10th class minimum 20,000 pounds, as per 
item 38, page 67, Canadian Freight Classification No. 16. In proposed Classi- 
fication No. 17 the following carload provision is shown: — 

Page Item 

Baskets: C.L. 

52 5 Bakers', butchers', or laundry, Min. Wt. 10,000 lbs 3 

7 Berrv. fruit, plant or vegetable shipping,, sheet or stave 

veneer, Min. Wt, 20,000 lbs 7 

Min. Wt. 30.000 lbs 10 

16 Stave and splint, N.O.I.B.N., Min. Wt. 10,000 lbs 3 

18 Wicker, willow or rattan, other than bakers', butchers' or 

laundry, Min. Wt. 12,000 lbs 3 

It is understood the foregoing items in proposed Classification 17 are those in 
which complainants are interested. 

A representative of the complainants did not appear before the Board at 
the Ottawa sittings December 3 and 4, but they forwarded written submissions 
and there was discussion in respect thereto with the carriers' representatives at 
the sittings in question. 

The lowest rating in the Canadian Freight Classification is 10th class, 
applying on low-grade commodities in carloads such as lumber, coal, cement, 
brick, paving blocks, plaster,, gravel, sand, scrap iron, stone, lime, etc., etc. 
The recognized classification minimum weight attaching to these 10th class car- 
load ccmmodities is 30,000 pounds per car, as prescribed by rule 1 of Classi- 
fication No. 16. Many of these 10th class commodities weigh heavily and the 
actual average carload loading is considerably in excess of 30,000 pounds. In 
Classification No. 16, however, there are also a number of bulky commodities 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 129 

provided for at 10th class carload rating and with a carload) minimum weight 
of 20,000 pounds, or 10,000 pounds below the normal minimum weight, and, 
generally speaking, these articles do not load in excess of the lower minimum 
weight specified, and in many instances considerably below that figure. The 
principal items provided for in Classification No. 16 at 10th class and this very 
low carload minimum weight, are barrels, baskets, lumbermen's boats, wooden 
boxes, corn cobs, wooden crates, hay, husks and hulls, sawdust and shavings, 
firkins, pails or tubs. In revising the classification the Special Classification 
Committee have, generally speaking, advanced the carload rating on these articles, 
the following of the items above enumerated being advanced from 10th to 7th 
class: wooden barrels, wooden boxes, corn cobs, wooden crates, husks, firkins, 
pails, tubs. The provision for lumbermen's boats was not carried forward to 
Classification No. 17. Hay was left at 10th class but the minimum carload 
weight was advanced fronr20,000 to 22,000 pounds. Sawdust and shavings were 
left at 10th class but the minimum carload weight was advanced to 30,000 
pounds. 

Before the proposed ratings were arrived at the matters involved were 
discussed in conference by the representatives of the various basket manufac- 
turers, and the Special Classification Committee. With the exception of the 
complainant, there was agreement. 

Baskets rated at 3rd class minimum 10,000 pounds approximate the earn- 
ings per car produced under rating of 7th class minimum 20,000 pounds, taking 
for the purpose of computation shipments from Rodney, Ont. — one of the com- 
plainants' points of manufacture — to various destination points in Ontario, 
which is complainants' principal distributing market. 

Statements were filed by the complainant in regard to this traffic. Unfor- 
tunately these did not show the actual weight loaded — they simply showed the 
minimum weights, consequently, the figures did not permit actual loading to be 
checked against minima. 

There is nothing before the Board which would justify it saying that taking 
into consideration the rating provided on other articles, and considering bulk, 
weight, tonnage volume, risk, cost of cartage, etc., the ratings and minimum 
proposed are unreasonable. 

Mr. Ransom stated that with respect to item 18 on page 52 they were 
prepared to change the proposed minimum carload weight of 12,000 pounds to 
read 10,000 pounds, and this is provided for by the list of changes that has been 
filed with the Board covering amendments made since proposed classification 
No. 17 was first submitted for approval. With the amendment just referred to 
the proposed provision for baskets in carloads may be approved. 

XV 

Stationery and School Books in Mixed Carloads 

Page 58, Item 3 

Complaint of L. C. Wilson, Calgary (file 8336543) 

Subsequent to the sittings of the Board at Calgary at which matters in 
connection with proposed Classification No. 17 were listed for hearing, Mr. 
L. C. Vv^ilson wrote the Board under date of July 24, 1924, concerning mixture 
of school books and stationery, in carloads, as follows: — 

" I buy stationery and school books in Toronto, some of them from 
the same firm. Stationery I am able to have shipped in pooled cars from 
Toronto to Calgary, but on school books I have to pay first class freight 
rate. 

25486—9 



130 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" At one time it was possible to include school books in these station- 
cry cars and get the car-lot rate. I understand, however, that some of 
the western jobbers were responsible for this arrangement being discon- 
tinued. It would mean a considerable saving to me if I were able to 
bring these school books in in mixed cars at the car-lot rate. 

" I understand that the question on mixed cars is now before your 
Board, and hope that you will give this matter your consideration." 
The reply by Mr. Ransom, of the Canadian Freight Association, to this appli- 
cation reads: — 

" Mr. Wilson is wrong in his understanding that school books were, 
at one time, included in the stationery list, and that western jobbers were 
responsible for the arrangement being discontinued. My records do not 
indicate that school books were ever in the .stationery list and this is 
the first application received to add them to such list. Other shippers, 
dealing in school books to a much greater extent than Mr. Wilson, are 
handling them in straight carloads under the present Classification and 
possibly they would object to the change proposed. I have investigated 
and find that the total shipments for Mr. Wilson would approximate 
about 3,500 pounds per annum. 

" School books are classified 3rd class in carloads, whereas stationery 
is classified 4th class and shippers of stationery advise that they are not 
interested in this application and would not include school books in their 
stationery cars even though school books were classified under the heading 
of stationery in the Canadian Freight Classification. The inclusion of 3,500 
pounds of school books, Mr. Wilson's total shipments for the season, if 
forwarded in one car of stationery, would result in a higher toll on the 
entire shipment than if the stationery was shipped at the carload rating 
and the school books at the L.C.L. rating. Shippers of stationery would 
therefore object to including school books in their cars. 

" In view of the above explanation, we trust the Board will, on due 
consideration, advise Mr. Wilson they are not prepared to order any 
change in the existing ratings. 

" A copy of this letter has been sent to Mr. Wilson." 

The Classification has never provided for the mixture of school books and 
stationery in mixed carloads at the carload rate and in view of the fact that 
the carload rating on stationery is 4th class while on the school books it is 3rd 
class, and that the rule as to mixing provides for the application of the carload 
rate provided for the highest classed article in the mixture, it seems clear that 
the transfer of school books from their alphabetical heading, as at present and as 
in proposed Classification No. 17, to the stationery list at the present ratings 
would not be of any benefit to the applicant, for the reasons outlined by Mr. 
Ransom. Nothing has been adduced alleging that^the present ratings on school 
books are in themselves unreasonable, and there is nothing on the record that 
would justify the Board in reducing the carload rating on school books, and 
including them in the stationery list, for the sole purpose of enabling the appli- 
cation of the carload rating on a less than carload shipment of school books. The 
present carload rating on school books was prescribed by order of the Board 
No. 4680, dated May 7, 1908. 

XVI 

Carload Rating on Butter Boxes 

Page 59, Item 12 

Complaint of the Saskatchewan Dairy Association, et al (file S3365.14) 
Item 12, page 59, of proposed Classification No. 17, covers bail, blacking, 
butter, fig, grease, salt, spice or tobacco boxes, wooden. The carload provision 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 131 

shown therein is 6th class, minimum weight 16,000 pounds. This has been sub- 
sequently amended, in mimeographed list of changes and additions to proposed 
Classification filed with the Board, to rating of 7th class, C.L. minimum weight 
18,000 pounds. At the present time the provision for carloads is 10th class, 
minimum 20,000 pounds, as per item 48, page 69, of Classification No. 16. 
There is no complaint before the Board as to the proposed provision for any of 
the wooden boxes other than the butter box. It may be further stated that there 
is no complaint before the Board from any of the box manufacturers in either 
eastern or western Canada. There was a complaint filed by the Alberta Box 
Company, Limited, Calgary, but by letter from this company dated August 2, 
1924, they asked permission to withdraw their objections. They stated: — 

" Our case was prepared in the main against the original proposals, 
time did not allow us to check up fully its effect when all were included 
as 7th class 18,0Q0 pounds minimum/ We have gone into it now very 
carefully and find that the amounts involved would be small, so small, 
that we do not think in fairness we can ask or object to the present pro- 
posal, therefore, with your permission we desire to withdraw our objec- 
tions." 
Mr. Ransom outlined that there had been a conference between representatives 
of the carriers and interested manufacturers, not only of boxes but also other 
wooden containers, and agreement had been reached as to the proposed classifi- 
cation revision. More details as to the revision of classification and reasons 
therefor are to be found herein under the heading of the carload rating oii 
baskets, in the matter of complaint of the Canada Wood Products Company,, 
Limited, of St. Thomas, Ont. (section XIV), consequently to avoid reiteration 
of the same phases of the matter reference should be made to what is therein, 
stated. The carriers urged that it was inconsistent that the manufactured 
article — the box — with an abnormally low minimum carload weight, should 
take the same carload rating as the raw material, and which also carries a higher 
minimum weight. It may be here mentioned that the raw material is largely 
carried on basis lower than the class rates under special commodity tariffs. 
However, we are here dealing with the question of the proper class in the 
classification for the articles in question rather than with the rates themselves. 
According to the record, some boxes, such as packing cases, beer boxes and meat 
boxes, can be loaded to 20,000 or 21,000 pounds, per car, but there are other 
boxes that load lighter. The manager of the Alberta Box Company stated that* 
formerly butter boxes could be loaded to a weight of 20,000 pounds per car. At 
the time, the trade used 56-, 28- and 14-pound boxes, but to-day there is very 
little call for the 28- and 14-pound boxes, so that boxes cannot be nested, and 
consequently as a result of a change in the commercial conditions the weight now 
loaded is below, generally speaking, even the proposed minimum of 18,000 pounds. 
It was stated in evidence that a carload of butter boxes would run from 13,600 
pounds to 14,400 pounds. 

The P. Burns Company, Calgary, under date of May 2, 1924, filed objection 
with the Board to the proposed rating of 6th class, minimum 16,000 pounds, on 
butter boxes, but when this matter was subsequently listed for hearing at the 
sittings of the Board at Calgary no submissions were made by P. Burns and 
Company, with respect to the amended proposal of the carriers, although a repre- 
sentative of Burns and Company was at the sittings and made representations in 
connection with other features of the proposed classification. 

Aside from the foregoing, the objections filed with the Board to the carload 
provision for butter boxes were from the dairy interests in Saskatchewan, and 
Mr. D'Arcy Scott, representing the National Dairy Council of Canada. At the 
sittings of the Board in Regina on July 10, Messrs. Reid, representing the 
Saskatchewan Dairy Association, McLean, of the Prairie Creameries, and alsa 

25486— &£ 



132 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

representing the Saskatchewan Dairy Association; and Pierce, of the Saskatche- 
wan Creamery Company, appeared before the Board and presented their sub- 
missions with regard to butter boxes. The parties above referred to, and who are 
the only objectors before the Board, did not deal with the matter from the 
standpoint of the proposed classification provision being unreasonable per se, or 
inconsistent, and not bearing a fair relationship to the provision for other articles 
similar in character as respects bulk, weight, value, cost of carriage. 

From the evidence butter boxes used in Saskatchewan come, for the most 
part, from Calgary. Detail as to the volume of business involved was not filed. 
The Canadian Pacific filed a statement of carlots of butter boxes shipped from 
Calgary to Saskatchewan destinations in the period January to June, 1924. 
This shows twenty-two cars to Saskatchewan points, and nine going to Regina. 
No evidence regarding the Canadian National shipments, in the same period, is 
before the Board. 

According to the evidence the loading averaged 1,700 of 56-pound boxes per 
car. As pointed out, the question has not been approached from the classifica- 
tion rating, but from the rate standpoint. 

Averaging the carlot charges from Calgary to the following destination points 
in Saskatchewan, viz., Yorkton, Kerrobert, Regina, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, 
Maple Creek, Carlyle, Wolseley, Shaunavon, Moosomin and Saskatoon, the 
average increase in the transportation charge on 56-pound butter boxes arising 
from the rearrangement proposed, would amount to one-third of a cent per box, 
or fractionally, less than 12 cents per ton of butter. The increase involved if 
spread over the 5,372 dairy producers in the province of Saskatchewan would 
amount to 12 cents per producer per annum. 

Having in view the discussions which have taken place with the manufac- 
turers of these commodities, and considering what has been adduced on behalf 
of the complainants, it does not appear that a case has been made out for inter- 
fering with the classification rating proposed. 

XVII 

BOXES, SHIRTWAISTS OR SKIRT 

With or without covering of cloth, cane, fibre, grass or matting. Page 60, 
item 32. 

Complaint of The Chesley Chair Company, Limited, Chesley, Ont. (file 

33365.39) 

The provision in Classification No. 17, so far as relates to L.C.L. shipments 

only, reads: — 

Page Item L.C.L. 

Boxes 
60 32 Shirtwaist or skirt, with or without covering of cloth, cane, 

fibre, grass or matting: 

S.U., not nested 1£ 

S.U., nested 1 

K.D., in boxes or crates 2 

This complaint related only to the L.C.L. rating of 1J T 1 as applied to 
cedar chests, which is one of the description of boxes covered by the item above 
quoted. There is no complaint before the Board respecting the application of 
this rating on the other types of boxes covered by the item. Proposed Classifi- 
cation No. 17 merely continues the ratings already in effect in Classification 
No. 16. The L.C.L. rating of 1^ T 1 has, as a matter of fact, been in effect since 
1913. No complaint has previously been lodged against same. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 



133 



Complainants were not represented at the hearing and their written submis- 
sion, reads: — 

" We are one of a few manufacturers in Canada of cedar chests 
which are a comparatively new article on the Canadian market, having 
been sold in quantities only during the past two or three years. They 
average about 42 inches by 20 inches by 20 inches, and weigh approxi- 
mately eighty-five pounds. They are shipped in crates and according to 
the classifications of the Canadian Freight Association, one and one half 
times the first class rate applied to boxes, shirtwaist or skirt, with or 
without covering of cloth, cane, fibre, grass or matting, and the chests 
which have no covering have been applied as such. The rate which 
applies to buffets, dressers, bureaus, etc., is only two-thirds the rate we 
are charged on the chests, and we feel that an adjustment should be made 
whereby the rate on cedar chests shall be no higher than first class or the 
same rate as charged on buffets. 

u Will you kindly look into this matter and advise us if you can 
arrange to have the first class rate apply on this article. We are enclosing 
a folder showing illustrations of the chests manufactured by us, and trust 
that you will give this your early consideration." 

It will be observed that the only grounds advanced by complainants for 
reduction is a comparison with the rating provided for buffets, dressers, bureaus, 
etc. 

What was urged as a ground for reduction was a comparison with the rat- 
ing provided for buffets, dressers, bureaus, etc. A contention advanced is that 
an adjustment should be made whereby the rate on cedar chests should be no 
higher than first class, or the same rate as charged on buffets. 

No data were filed with the Board making a comparison as between cedar 
chests on the one hand, and the other articles that would be covered by the 
same classification item, so far as relates to their bulk, weight, value or other 
elements affecting the classification, nor were any data filed covering a compari- 
son of this character as between cedar chests vs. buffets, dressers, bureaus, etc. 
The difference in rating as between these articles does not create any unjust dis- 
crimination in the sense that articles competing with each other are being 
charged unequal tolls, as there is no competition as between cedar chests and 
buffets, dressers and bureaus. The same relationship exists in the Canadian 
Classification (present and proposed) and in the Official and Western Classifica- 
tions. There are numerous items of furniture that are rated 1st class L.C.L. and 
also many others that are rated l^Tl L.C.L. , as well as D-l. The mere com- 
parison of the ratings on one article with another, if there is no competition 
between them, does not, in itself, justify a change in the classification. There 
is no such evidence of competitive relationship. The Board would not be war- 
ranted in making any direction as to a change in the present classification on 
the record before it. 

XVIII 

CARLOAD RATING ON BROOM CORN 

Page 61, item 52. 
Complaint cf Canadian Broom Manufacturers' Association (file 33365 .28) 



Present 


L.C.L. 


C.L. 


Proposed 


L.C.L. 


C.L. 


Broom Corn — 

Pressed in bales, C.L. minimum 


1 


5 


Broom Corn — 

Pressed in bales 


1 


* 


weight 20,000 pounds 


Pressed in bales, C.L. minimum 
weight 16,000 pounds, subject 
to Rule 7.. 






4 









134 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

It will be observed the change proposed is with respect to the carload rat- 
ing, reducing the minimum carload weight from 20,000 pounds to 16,000 pounds 
and increasing the rating from 5th to 4th class. Computations based on the 
minimum weights under the present and proposed provisions, indicate approxi- 
mately the same results so far as charges per car are concerned, with respect to 
shipments between points in Eastern Canada, although in Western Canada it 
would mean a reduction. 

Mr. Ransom, for the Canadian Freight Association, stated that broom corn 
cannot be loaded in the standard car to a weight in excess of the minimum pro- 
posed. There has been an effort on the part of the Classification Committee in 
the preparation of the new Classification to establish, in connection with light 
and bulky commodities, minimum carload weights more closely approximating 
what can reasonably be loaded than formerly provided in many instances. No 
broom corn is produced in Canada, and practically all of it moving to points in 
Eastern Canada is imported from the United States under the provisions of the 
Official or Western Classifications, which provide a carload rating of 3rd class, 
minimum weight 18,000 pounds. Mr. Ransom alleged that the only shipments 
moving within Canada under the provisions of the Canadian Classification 
covered instances where the shipment was consigned from its United States 
point of origin to a point in Canada short of destination and reforwarded hence 
to final point of destination, the handling in this manner producing in some 
instances, apparently, a combined toll less than that published from original 
point of origin to final destination. If Mr. Ransom's statement that broom corn 
cannot be loaded in excess of the minimum proposed is correct, then this condi- 
tion to which he refers would not be in any way affected by the proposed change 
and the reason for complaint is not apparent. 

The complainants advised they were unable to be represented at the hearing 
and forwarded written submissions. In their submission of May 9 complainants 
stated while it is difficult to load 20,000 pounds in a standard car they prefer 
leaving the classification as it is to-day to having it changed as proposed. 
Request was therefore made in that communication that the classification on 
broom corn in carloads be left as it is. In their further telegraphic submission 
of December 2 complainants reiterated their position but stated they would have 
no objection to minimum weight of 18,000 pounds at carload rating 5th class. 
No evidence was given on behalf of complainants justifying this reduction in 
minimum, and such a low minimum weight as suggested in connection with an 
article taking the 5th class carload rating would be abnormal. Their original 
submission was, as stated, that the classification remain as at present. 

The proposed change makes practically no difference in charges per car in 
Eastern Canada, and it would therefore seem that the objection has been based 
on misunderstanding. It brings about a reduction to the receiver in Western 
Canada. The proposed change may be approved. 

XIX 

Carload Rating on Butter 

Page 66, Item 48 

Application of Saskatchewan Dairy Association (file 33365.37) 

At the sittings at Regina July 10, 1924, Mr. J. J. Maclean, representing the 
Saskatchewan Dairy Association, raised the question of the carload rate and 
minimum carload weight on butter. In proposed Classification No. 17 no change 
is being made in the ratings but an increase in the minimum carload weight from 
20,000 to 24,000 pounds was proposed. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 135 

So far as relates to the question of minimum weight, the carriers have agreed 
to an amendment restoring the 20,000 pounds minimum, which disposes of this 
phase of the matter. 

With, regard to the carload rating, the application was brought on at Regina 
without previous written notice or submissions from any party and was only 
developed in a very fragmentary manner. Mr. Maclean stated he would prepare 
a written statement and submit it to the Board later. Mr. Maclean's written 
submission, dated September 16, was as follows: — 

" In support of our application for a reduction in the classification I 
enclose a list showing the articles taking third class in the proposed 
classification No. 17 (corrected). 

" This list shows that, generally speaking, the articles so classified 
are either bulky, dangerous to handle, fragile, valuable, or the traffic in 
them is limited. 

"Butter seems to be the exception. Instead of being bulky it is 
packed solidly in square boxes which stow well. It is not dangerous to 
handle. It is not fragile as the Railways Claim Departments records will 
show that their claims for damages to butter are lower than the average 
claims on all other commodities. It is not valuable as the prices range 
from six (6) cents a pound for the poorest Dairy to forty (40) cents a 
pound for the finest Creamery. The traffic in it is not limited as 
163,456,759 pounds of creamery were made in Canada last year and 
doubtless about as much dairy. 

" There was never such a necessity for dairying in this country as 
there is at the present time. With poor crops in many sections, with taxes 
so high, and prices of manufactured articles so out of line with prices for 
raw products, very few farms, East or West, are earning any adequate 
interest on the capital invested in them and the farmers are looking to 
their cows to pay their current expenses. To help them the creamery 
operators are working on a smaller margin than ever before. The classi- 
fication of butter in line with other food products will help us materially 
and we trust therefore that you will grant our application and have 
Classification No. 16 amended accordingly if No. 17 is not to be issued 
for some time yet." 

Chairman Ransom filed his submissions in reply under date of January 19, 
1925, from which the following is quoted: — 

" Carriers contend that the present Classification is fair and reason- 
able when you come to consider the values and the highly perishable 
nature of this commodity. You will observe that comparison has been 
made with a great many other articles classified 3rd class in our Classifi- 
cation Which, with one or two exceptions, are not of a perishable nature 
and can be handled in ordinary box car service. 

" Butter is a commodity that must be loaded in specially clean 
refrigerator cars and we have had several claims for damage where ship- 
ments have been loaded in cars that had previously contained com- 
modities which left an odour that could not be noticed when the car was 
empty and the doors opened. A condition of this kind could not occur 
with any of the other commodities mentioned in the comparison made by 
Mr. Maclean. 

" Butter has been classified 3rd class in carloads since the Classi- 
fication was first established in 1884 and we are positive that the present 
Classification is not, in any way, handicapping the manufacture and sale 
of this commodity. 



136 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



" This complaint from Mr. Maclean is the only one that we have 
received from all of the dealers throughout the Dominion in regard to 
the rate. Several of them were opposed to the increase in the minimum 
weight and asked that the minimum of 20,000 pounds be continued, to 
which the committee have agreed. 

u To grant this request would mean a reduction in the revenue of our 
railways which they are not prepared to voluntarily sacrifice and we trust 
that on due consideration the Board will concede that no argument has 
been advanced that would warrant them in ordering a reduction in the 
carload ratings on butter and that the applicants will be so advised." 

A copy of this reply went to Mr. Maclean who filed his answer under date 
of January 26. With his submission Mr. Ransom also filed a statement of 
wholesale and retail prices at Calgary, Regina, Edmonton and Montreal, and 
the wholesale prices at Winnipeg. Mr. Maclean's answer of January 26 dealt 
almost entirely with this portion of Mr. Ransom's submission. In substance, 
Mr. Maclean's contention was that the prices shown by Mr. Ransom were for 
the choicest grades of butter, and that the lower grades sell for considerably less. 

Mr. Maclean also stated: — 

" Mr. Ransom is quite correct in stating that butter requires to be 
loaded in clean cars and that they have paid claims owing to unclean cars 
being used. However, our contention that they pay less for claims on 
butter than their average claims for all other commodities still stands." 

As to the question of prices, this being an application from: the province of 
Saskatchewan only, I would disregard the submissions above referred to and 
take the figures of production and value of creamery butter for the province of 
Saskatchewan as shown in the records of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and 
which are set out below: — 



Year 


Pounds 


$ 


Cents 
per pound 


1900 


143,645 
132,803 
1,548,696 
3,811,014 
4,310,669 
4,220,758 
5,009,016 
6,622,572 
6,638,656 
7,030,053 
8,901,144 
10,867,010 


29,362 
36,599 
381,809 
1,055,000 
1,338,180 
1,575,965 
2,221,403 
3,495,172 
3,727,140 
2,552,698 
3,066,573 
3,632,377 


20-44 


1907 


27-55 


1910 


24-65 


1915 


27-68 


1916 


31 04 


1917 


37-33 


1918 


44-34 


1919 


52-77 


1920 .... 


56-14 


1921 


36-31 


1922 


34-45 


1923 


33-42 







In this connection the following is also taken from the Dominion Bureau cf 
Statistics Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics, Vol. 17, No. 192, page 
245: — 

" CREAMERY BUTTER 

" The quantity of creamery butter made in Canada in 1923 was 
163,456,759 pounds, valued at $56,894,008, an increase in quantity over 
the preceding year of 10,954,859 pounds, or 7 per cent, and an increase in 
value of $3,440,725, or 6 per cent. The average price per pound for the 
whole of Canada was 34 cents in 1923, compared with 35 cents in 1922. 
The production of creamery butter in 1923 exceeds in quantity the 
production of any previous year and is exceeded in value only by that 
of 1920 when the average price per pound was 57 cents." 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 137 

In my opinion the list of other articles taking 3rd class in carloads in 
proposed Classification No. 17 as furnished by Mr. Maclean does not provide 
the Board with anything determinative as to the propriety of the rating on 
butter. There is, generally speaking, no apology whatever between the articles 
compared, the majority of which have been given a 3rd class rating as a result 
of Classification factors that are entirely dissimilar to the Classification 
elements that would be considered in the establishment of a rating on butter. 
For example, obviously, different Classification elements would be considered in 
fixing a carload rating on such articles as advertising matter, games and toys, 
hops, theatrical scenery, billiard tables and fittings, cork, ferris wheels, etc., 
than would be given weight when it came to fixation of the rating on butter. 
With one or two exceptions the articles embodied in Mr. Maclean's list are not 
of a perishable nature and are handled in ordinary box car service. The con- 
ditions with regard to the handling of butter are quite dissimilar as it is a 
commodity that must be handled in refrigerator cars that are specially cleaned 
for the purpose. 

'On this point the following references from cases decided by the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, in the United States, are pertinent: — 

" In the matter of rates on dairy products, 43 I.C.C., at p. 717, it is 
stated: — 

" The rates selected for comparison with the" rate on eggs apply 
on such commodities as books, advertising matter, glass lamp 
chimneys, toys and go-carts, coffins, petroleum in tank cars and other 
commodities, the circumstances and conditions surrounding the move- 
ment of which are so obviously dissimilar from those surrounding the 
movement of eggs that the comparisons are without probative force. 
" Again, in 39 I.C.C., at p. 693, Chas. Platts V. New York, New 
Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al., in which was involved 
the question of rates on shucked oysters, comparison had been made by 
complainant with the ratings on other food products, such as bananas, 
butter, fresh dressed meat, cheese, fish (fresh or frozen) , and live lobsters, 
and the Commission stated that some of these commodities were so 
dissimilar to shucked oysters that the comparisons were not helpful." 

With reference to Mr. Maclean's argument in the closing porportion of his 
submissions of September 16, which is, in substance, that the application for a 
reduction in the rating on butter is, to some extent at least, based on the premise 
that there is necessity for assistance to the dairying industry of the province of 
Saskatchewan, it may be pointed out that this is not an argument that can very 
well be given weight in considering a Classification rating, This appeal is based 
on grounds that are beyond the powers of this Board. Appeals of this character 
are still made to the Board, although the Board has very clearly set out on 
numerous occasions the situation in this respect under the provisions of the 
Railway Act. For example, in the Board's judgment in the matter of the 
National Dairy Council of Canada re rate on butter, western Canada to 
Vancouver and Montreal, it was stated: — 

" Counsel submitted that having in mind the ' necessity of developing 
mixed farming in Alberta ' the rates were excessive. That is to say, the 
need of diversifying agricultural production was to be taken as a criterion 
of what the rate should be. 

" At page 1680 of the evidence, counsel made an argument in this 
respect, from the standpoint of public policy, as to the necessity of 
stimulating milk production. At the same time, he frankly stated in 
this connection, ' of course, this is an argument that should be made more 
to the railways than to the Board.' 



138 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" The method of presentation involved in this phase of the matter is 
not unusual, and on this account a word of comment making clear the 
nature of the jurisdiction of the Board is justifiable. The Board is given 
power to deal, inter alia, with the reasonableness of the rates. It is 
nowhere authorized by Parliament to be an arbiter of industrial policy. 
Opinions may differ as to different lines of development, but the Board's 
functions in approaching a rate situation are concerned with ascertaining 
the reasonableness of the rate, not with applying to a rate situation a 
preconceived opinion as to what type or method of industry should be 
helped by a modification of the rate. 

' 'In other words, while members of the Board may and do, as 
Canadians, sympathize with policies of economic development which may 
through increasing diversity lead to greater economic solidarity, it is not 
their general opinions but the powers conferred on them by the Railway 
Act which determine what they can do. Very wide powers, it is true, are 
given under the Railway Act; but the Railway Act is not to be construed 
as if it were a blank cheque to be filled in as members of the Board see 
fit. It is not the Board's function, as delegated by Parliament, to make 
rates to develop business, but to deal with the reasonableness of rates 
either on complaint or of its own motion."— Vol. XII, No. 16, Board's 
Printed Judgments and Orders. 

It was also mentioned at the hearing, as well as pointed out in Mr. Ransom's 
reply, that there are now in effect commodity rates from certain points in 
Saskatchewan to Vancouver, also to Montreal for export, which are lower than 
the 3rd class basis applicable under the Canadian Freight Classification, and it 
was stated that an appreciable volume of traffic moved under these commodity 
rates which are already lower than the Classification basis. However, the matter 
was not very fully developed from this standpoint and there is therefore nothing 
on the record indicating what proportion of Saskatchewan butter moves under 
the Classification basis as compared with that under lower commodity rates. 

The Board is here asked to direct a change in the Canadian Freight 
Classification, which, of course, applies from one end of the country to the 
other, in respect to a very large tonnage, the production of creamery butter 
alone in Canada in 1923 being 163,456,759 pounds. The present classification 
rating has been in effect since the year 1884. There has been no complaint 
previously, and there is no application now before the Board in regard to this 
rating, except from the applicants herein referred to. 

The record presented does not warrant the reduction in rating asked for. 

XX 

Barrels, Empty, Returned 

Page 69, Item 10 

Complaint of Ontario Vinegar Manufacturers^ Association 

(File 33365.16) 

Complainants objected to the proposed increase in rating on returned empty 
vinegar barrels, L.C.L., from 4th to 3rd class. Their submission, however, 
dealt largely with the ratings on vinegar, referring to the large proportion 
which the freight rate bears to the value of the product and alleging therefrom 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 139 

" that vinegar is already bearing enormously more than its fair share of the 
traffic burden, and that any change should be downward rather than upward/' 

The ratings on vinegar are not being changed and there is no complaint 
before the Board regarding them. The ratings on vinegar or any other com- 
modity, are fixed with regard to the carriage of such commodity, and there is 
not considered, in connection with the fixation of ratings on a commodity, the 
question of the return of the empty carrier, in which such commodity was 
transported, from the consignee at destination back to consignor at point of 
shipment, so that in dealing with the ratings on returned empties, the classifica- 
tion of the commodity transported therein is not relevant. 

Complainants made reference to the percentage proportion of freight 
charges to the value of the article. It must be obvious that data of this char- 
acter are not very helpful in determining the reasonableness of a rating. There 
are many items both in the way of returned carriers, and on the commodity 
or article itself, where the same remarks would be applicable. For example, 
if the value of a half-barrel is $6.50, as quoted by Mr. Balfour, representing 
the complainants, obviously the percentage of the freight rate to the value is 
dependent entirely upon whether it moves a short distance under the rate 
applicable therefor, or a much greater distance at the higher rate chargeable 
for the longer haul. Mr. Balfour quoted the freight charge on a returned barrel 
from London to Hamilton as 20 cents and from Port Arthur to Hamilton as 62 
cents. The value of the barrel being a fixed figure ($6.50) and the freight rate 
a widely varying one, according to the distance hauled, the percentage of the 
freight rate to the value of the barrel fluctuates accordingly. Obviously, a 
freight rate based on a fixed percentage of the- value of the article or com- 
modity would be impracticable. 

For a great many years — long before the creation of this Board in 1904 — 
there has been provision, with some exceptions, for the carriage of second-hand 
empty returned carriers at 4th class L.C.L. In proposed Classification No. 17 
these ratings, generally speaking, are advanced to 3rd class. The position of 
the carriers has always been that this low rating on returned empties has been 
a voluntary concession on their part. Mr. Ransom stated that in revising the 
classification it had been their original intention to cancel the ratings on these 
returned carriers; that on all other articles or commodities no distinction is 
made between new and old, and they saw no good reason why the same rating 
should not apply on old barrels as new barrels, and the same with other con- 
tainers. However, this proposition met with considerable objection from some 
of the trade, but the classification as amended was agreed to by the various 
interests such as the barrel-men, the oil-men, the packers, etc. The rating for 
these barrels when not shipped as returned empties is 1J T 1, if weighing less 
than 65 pounds each, and 1st class if weighing 65 pounds or over, so that the 
returned empty rating is in one case two classes, and in the other three classes 
below the normal rating. 

The revision of the returned empty carrier ratings having been agreed 
upon between representatives of the carriers and shippers, except in the case 
of the vinegar manufacturers, they should not, in my opinion, be disturbed, and 
I am further of the opinion that it would not be reasonable or consistent to 
make exception in the case of the wooden vinegar barrels, leaving the ale, beer, 
fish, gasoline, grease, meat, mineral water, oil, syrup, wine and liquor barrels 
at a higher rating. There is no complaint before the Board as to the rating on 
the barrels last named, and I do not consider it unreasonable. The classifica- 
tion as proposed may be approved. 



140 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

XXI 

Empty Biscuit Tins, and Wooden Cases, Returned 

Page 69, Items 18, 20, 30 and 32 

Complaint of the McCormick Manufacturing Company, Limited, London, Ont. 

(File 33365.20) 

Complainants, in letter to the Board dated May 7, 1924, set out their objec- 
tion to proposed change in L.C.L. rating on returned empty biscuit tins and 
wooden cases from 4th to 3rd class. Although duly notified, they were not 
represented at the Ottawa sittings of the Board at which the various items in 
Classification No. 17 to which objections had been taken by various interests 
were listed for hearing. Complainants referred to the large amount of money 
paid out each year in freight charges for returned empties and the large per- 
centage of tare weight to the gross weight on the outward shipments of their 
products, and also advanced other reasons in support of the contention that 
the rating on returned empties should be kept as low as possible. With regard 
to percentage of tare to gross weight in connection with this firm's outward 
shipments of their products, their position is not in any way exceptional. Their 
objections have been carefully considered. What is here involved has in prin- 
ciple been dealt with in connection with the complaint of the Ontario Vinegar 
Manufacturers' Association regarding the rating on returned empty vinegar 
barrels (section XX). The rating for the articles here complained of, when 
returned empty, is in some cases two, and in others three, classes lower than on 
the article when shipped new, and for the reasons already outlined in the 
matter of the other complaint herein referred to the provision as proposed in 
Classification No. 17 may be approved. 

XXII 

Carbide of Calcium , Minimum Carload Weight of. 

Page 80, Item 46 

Application of Canada Carbide Company, Limited, Montreal, (file 83365.29)1 

The question of minimum carload weight on carbide of calcium is here 
involved and not the ratings. It appears that in revising Classification No. 
16 the Classification Committee primarily contemplated provision for minimum 
carload weight of 36,000 pounds on this commodity. This was subsequently 
modified and in the proposed Classification as now before the Board for approval 
is shown as 30,000 pounds. The present minimum carload weight is 24,000 
pounds. Speaking generally, the present minimum carload weights were estab- 
lished a great many years ago when both the carrying capacity of cars, and, 
in many instances, the commercial conditions, were quite dissimilar to those 
existing to-day, and one of the principles of the revision of Classificatdon has 
been to increase minimum carload weights; where this is possible, having regard 
to the interests of both shippers and carriers. The applicants, in letter dated 
May 16, 1924, drew the Boards attention to the proposed increase from 24,000 
to 36,000 pounds and stated that the increased weight would be more difficult 
to properly load in the car and require considerable bracing; further alleging 
that it would work a hardship on some of the receivers; of this commodity. They 
further stated that in discussion with the Classification Committee they had 
suggested a compromise at 30,000 pounds, and their submission to the Board 
was that if it was not considered that the present minimum weight could be 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 141 

maintained that it be fixed at 30,000 pounds. In further letter; dated June 5, 
applicants stated they had been advised that the Classification Committee 
had agreed to reduced minimum carload weight of 30,000 pounds and if the 
Board could not see its way clear to reduce this to 24,000 pounds they con- 
sidered it advisable to withdraw their protest rather than have the matter go 
to a hearing. They stated they would like the Board to consider their sub- 
mission but did not want to press, it to the point of a hearing. 

There is so little before the Board on the record that I do not think it 
would be warranted in directing any change in the minimumi weight provided 
for in Classification No. 17. It is evident that there is no difficulty in loading 
this; weight in the car and it is also the compromise figure that the applicants 
themselves suggested in discussion with the Classification Committee. It is 
noted that in the United States the minimum carload weight is. 36,000 pounds. 
The proposed minimum weight seems to be suitably related to that provided for 
other commodities which from a transportation standpoint might be considered 
analogous and as shown under the same distinctive heading, viz., "Chemicals, 
Drugs or Medicines " in Classification No. 17, 

XXIII 

Electric Stoves, Cooking, N.O.I.B.N. 

Page 107, Item 12 

Complaint of Canadian Stove Founders, et al (file 33365.33) 

The current item in Canadian Freight Classification No. 16 is item 34 on 
page 126, reading: "Stoves, ranges, and heaters, N.O.S." This item is under 
the distinctive heading: " Stoves, stove furniture, furnaces, and parts thereof," 
which, with respect to the provisions of present Classification rule 2 (c) — the 
mixing rule from Eastern to Western Canada — enables the inclusion of these 
stoves, ranges and heaters in mixed carloads with the other articles shown under 
the distinctive heading in question. So far as shipments between points in Eastern 
Canada are concerned, the provisions of Classification rule 2 (b) apply, which 
permit the mixture of all articles of the same class in carloads, or when different 
articles of more than one class are shipped in a mixed carload they are charged 
for at the carload rate and minimum carload weight of the article in the highest 
class. The carload rating on stoves, ranges and heaters, N.O.S. is 5th class. 

In proposed Classification No. 17 a revision of classification on stoves, 
ranges, heaters, and parts thereof, is provided for; new items being included 
and various changes made in descriptions and ratings from those contained in 
Classification No. 16. The wording of the distinctive heading has been changed 
to read, " Stoves, ranges, and heaters, other than electric, and parts." The 
electric stoves, cooking, N.O.I.B.N., have been provided for on page 107, under 
their alphabetical heading, at carload rating of 4th class, as compared with 
the present 5th class rating. The minimum carload weight has been reduced 
from 24,000 pounds, as at present, to 20,000 pounds. 

With respect to the mixing privilege under the proposed change, in Eastern 
Canada the inclusion of electric stoves, in cars with other stoves, ranges and 
heaters will bring. about the application of the 4th class carload rating on the 
mixture of 4th and 5th class goods; with regard to shipments between 
points west of Port Arthur and from points east thereof to Port Arthur and 
west, and vice versa, the electric cooking stoves will not mix with other articles 
at carload rating, on account of their being shown under their alphabetical 
heading instead of under a distinctive heading or trade list. 

So far as relates to the advance in the ratings on electric stoves, Mr. Ran- 
som, for the Canadian Freight Association, pointed out that the present ratings 



142 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

had been in existence since 1907, and at that time there were no electric stoves 
being manufactured and shipped between Canadian points. The classifica- 
tion item in question, therefore, did not contemplate or cover, as originally 
established, electric stoves. Subsequently there was a proposition to make 
specific provision for electric stoves at higher ratings than provided on the 
others, but the matter was finally left in abeyance pending the revision of the 
Classification that was then in hand. 

In the original written submission from the Canadian Stove Founders, 
dated May 14, 1924, they set out their objections to any change either as to 
ratings or mixing privilege from the provisions of Classification No. 16. How- 
ever, at the hearing, the parties signatory to the written submission in ques- 
tion individually stated that their views had been modified. There was con- 
siderable difference of opinion amongst the various parties interested in the 
manufacture and shipment of electric cooking stoves as to what the proper 
ratings should be and what mixing privilege should be allowed in connection 
with traffic moving under the provisions of proposed Classification rule 10, 
section 2 (the mixing rule to the west). 

As already pointed out, there are the two features: first the ratings them- 
selves; and second, the mixing privilege. 

With regard to the ratings, while it would appear that, in some cases, an 
increase will be effected in the L.C.L. ratings, there was nothing submitted on 
the record, by any of the parties, dealing specifically with the reasonableness 
or otherwise of the proposed L.C.L. ratings. The parties chose to confine their 
submissions to the question of the carload rating, and in connection with the 
latter the basis of comparison and evidence was to the effect that electric cooking 
stoves should not be rated higher than gas stoves. In view of this, and as the 
L.C.L. ratings on the electric cooking stoves are the same as provided for the 
gas stoves, and there is no complaint before the Board with respect to the latter, 
I think the assumption is warranted that the question of the L.C.L. ratings is 
not in reality before the Board on this record, and therefore does not require 
further comment. 

With respect to the carload rating of 4th class on the electric cooking 
stoves as compared with fifth class on the gas stoves, it appears that the pro- 
posal of the Special Classification Committee was to provide a 4th class rating 
on gas stoves with a minimum carload weight of 16,000 pounds, but in conference 
between the Classification Committee and interested manufacturers that was 
objected to because the manufacturers desired continuance of the privilege of 
mixing gas stoves with coal, wood, charcoal, etc., stoves at the 5th class car- 
load rating, and the Classification Committee accordingly agreed to this, 
although originally taking the position that 4th class was the proper rating for 
gas stoves in carloads. However, with respect to the electric cooking stoves the 
carriers contend that a 4th class carload rating is proper, and justified largely 
on the question of value. It was admitted by all the manufacturers appearing 
before the Board that there was appreciable difference in value. Mr. Moffat, of 
Moffat's Limited, Weston, Ont., stated that when taking out some figures about 
a year ago the difference in value as between gas and electric stoves was about 
40 per cent, but that this spread is decreasing. Mr. Beach, of the Beach Foundry 
Limited, Ottawa, expressed the matter differently by stating that the price of the 
electric stove ranged approximately 5 cents per pound gross higher than the 
gas stove. Mr. W. G. Nuttycombe, of the McClary Manufacturing Company, 
London, Ont., filed a statement indicating that from the standpoint of value 
per cubic foot or value per pound the electric stove exceeds appreciably in 
value the gas stove. With regard to the 4th class carload rating there was really 
objection to this from but one manufacturer, viz., Mr. Moffat. Mr. Beach 
stated it was the mixing privilege he was concerned with rather than the rating. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 143 

Mr. Nuttycombe, of the McClary Manufacturing Company, stated that he con- 
sidered the 4th class carload rating on electric stoves was a fair and reasonable 
one and from the standpoint of value alone they could not expect 5th class car- 
load rating. Mr. Campbell, of the Canadian General Electric . Company, and 
who also represented by proxy the National Electric Company, the Renfrew 
Electric Products, the Superior Electric Products, and the Westinghouse Com- 
pany, of Hamilton, stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Ransom, that he 
had no objection to the provision as proposed by the carriers in Classification 
No. 17. It is not clear from the record whether in making that remark Mr. 
Campbell desired to have it understood to include the other firms for whom he 
held proxies. While various comparisons as to value were put on the record at 
the hearing, both orally and in statements filed, it would seem that on account 
of there being so many variations in types of both kinds of stoves and the 
figures sometimes being the list price and others the wholesale price and again 
the retail price, that it is almost out of the question to analyze the figures to the 
point of any degree of definiteness as to the spread in value as between gas and 
electric stoves. There is the general admission on the record that there is an 
appreciable difference and one which in the opinion of various manufacturers, 
as already above referred to, justifies the 4th class carload rating. In view of 
this and the fact that the 5th class carload rating on gas stoves, which was the 
basis for the comparison and argument for the application of the same carload 
rating on electric stoves, was the result of a compromise as between the cariers 
and the manufacturers having in mind tlie privilege of mixing with other stoves, 
then I do not consider that from the record the Board would be justified in con- 
demning the proposed 4th class C.L. rating on electric stoves. It will be further 
noted that in establishing the rating of 4th class on the electric stoves it was 
based on the merit of the rating in itself as the carriers did not intend to provide 
for the mixing privilege with other stoves. 

With regard to the second phase of the matter, viz., the mixing privilege, 
here again there was a wide divergence in the views of the interested parties. 
Should electric stoves be left where provided for in proposed Classification No. 
17, which would necessitate shipments in straight carloads to western Canadian 
points; should they be placed in the stove list so as to permit mixing with coal, 
wood, charcoal, alcohol, gas, gasoline, oil or vapour stoves, at carload rating of 
4th class; or should they be regarded as more properly belonging to the electri- 
cal trade and included in the list of electrical appliances and supplies? 

Electric, gas, alcohol, etc., stoves are all made by the stove manufacturers, 
largely of the same materials, by the same workmen, and they are all stoves. 
Some parts are interchangeable, e.g., the same door goes on the coal, the electric 
and the gas stove. It appears that the purely electrical parts of the electric 
cooking stoves, such as the wiring, switches, etc., are made by the electrical, 
trade, rather than in the stove foundry itself. On the other hand, electric cook- 
ing stoves are unquestionably also a product of the electrical trade. Mr. Camp- 
bell, of the Canadian General Electric Company, stated that with respect to an 
electric range listing at $172.00 an analysis by their factory engineer showed 
that $104.24 of the figure quoted covered that portion of the stove belonging 
primarily and absolutely to the electrical industry. The Canadian General 
Electric Company support a factory at Stratford, Ont., which manufactures 
electric stoves. As far as the Westinghouse Company is concerned their repre- 
sentative's statement is that their electric range is entirely developed by their 
own engineers and they supplv all the electrical apparata that goes into the 
manufacture of that range but the stove manufacturer builds the contour of 
the range. The situation with regard to the other electrical manufacturers was 
not clearly developed on the record. Upon careful consideration of the record, 
and having regard to the mixture under the electric and stove lists, I reach the 



144 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

conclusion that in this case electric cooking stoves should be included in both 
the electric and stove lists at the ratings as proposed. The electric cooking 
stove is both an electrical product as well as a standard article of stove manu- 
facture, and consequently is entitled to inclusion in both lists on its merits. 
It might be here remarked that placing an article in more than one list is of 
quite common occurrence, not only in Classification No. 16 as at present in 
effect, but also in Classification No. 17, and in suggesting the inclusion of elec- 
tric stoves in two lists it is no new departure with respect to mixing privileges in 
the Classification. 

XXIV 

Salt, Clothes Lines, Epsom Salts, Chloride of Lime, Borax — Mixing 
Privileges and Carload Minimum Weights on — ■ 

Pages 130-144, Grocery List 

Application of Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association (file 33365.13) 

With the exception of Epsom salts, the articles above named are provided 
for in proposed Classification No. 17 under the distinctive heading " Groceries " 
at carload rating of 5th class, C.L. minimum weight 30,000 pounds. The Epsom 
salts are shown under the distinctive headings " Chemicals, Drugs or Medicines " 
at 5th class minimum 30,000 pounds, and Mr. Ransom stated there would be no 
objection to their incorporation in the grocery list at the same rating and mini- 
mum weight. The request of the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association with 
respect to all these articles is that they should be permitted to mix in carloads 
with groceries at minimum carload weight of 24,000 pounds. The mixing rule 
stipulates that the minimum carload weight will be the highest provided for any 
of the articles in the carload, so that the effect of including articles having a 
minimum carload weight of 30,000 pounds with articles taking minimum of 
24,000 pounds is to make the minimum weight for the mixture 30,000 pounds. 
Of course, if the weight of these articles included in a mixed car were such that 
the application of carload rate and minimum carload weight of 24,000 pounds 
on the articles taking that minimum, and the actual weight at less than carload 
rate for the articles taking the higher minimum, would figure cheaper than the 
application of the higher minimum weight on the whole carload, the shipment 
would be entitled to be charged for accordingly. What quantities of these 
articles are on an average included in mixed grocery cars does not appear on 
the record. With respect to chloride of lime, Mr. Balfour stated very little was 
shipped in grocery cars, but no information on this point was given with regard 
to the other articles. 

It was pointed out by the representatives of the carriers that borax is in 
the " Hardware " and the " Chemicals, Drugs or Medicines " lists at carload 
minimum weight of 30,000 pounds ; that Epsom salts and chloride of lime are in 
the " Chemicals, Drugs or Medicines " list at minimum carload weight of 30,000 
pounds. That with respect to wire clothes lines these are in the " Hardware " 
list at minimum carload weight of 30,000 pounds, and the rope clothes lines are 
under the heading of " Cordage " at 30,000 pounds. 

There is no complaint from any source as to the minimum carload weight 
on these articles under these other distinctive headings, or with respect to 
straight carload shipments of these commodities. In the case of chloride of 
lime this moves in large volume in straight carloads for use in the manufacture 
of paper, for purifying water, etc., and Epsom salts also moves in large volume 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 145 

in straight carloads for both the paper and the tanning arts, and as a chemical 
or drug. It was claimed, therefore, that as these articles were comparatively 
insignificant portions of the grocery business it would not be reasonable to 
reduce the minimum carload weight to 24,000 pounds simply as a matter of 
convenience in mixed cars with groceries when the proposed carload minimum 
weight of 30,000 pounds is in itself a reasonable commercial minimum carload 
weight for the ordinary movements and well within, of course, the carrying 
capacity of even the smaller standard cars now in use. 

The principle of the Classification rule that when a number of different 
articles for Which carload ratings are provided are shipped in a mixed carload 
they will be charged at the carload rate applicable to the highest classed article 
and the minimum carload weight will be the highest provided for any of the 
articles in the carload, is a principle of long standing in Canada as well as 
throughout the United States. The mixed carload rule, in substance, permits 
the application of the carload rating on an article forwarded in less than car- 
load quantities, and it does not appear why in such cases a lower minimum 
carload weight should reasonably apply to the mixed carload than governs when 
the article in question is shipped in straight carload quantities. Further it 
does not appear that there is any sound ground for reducing minimum carload 
weights that are in themselves reasonable, and not complained against, for 
the sole purpose of reducing the minimum carload weight on a mixed carload 
in which a small quantity of the article in question may be included. I do 
not consider, therefore, that applicants' request to reduce the minimum weight 
from 30,000 to 24,000 pounds, on the articles in question should be acceded 
to. It would appear that possibly this situation is largely conceded by Mr. 
Balfour as after considerable discussion he made the statement at p. 9645 
that — 

"We are asking for 24,000. We are really only interested under 
24,000 pounds items in carload quantities, but if the condition is as 
explained by Mr. Lanigan and you would be forced in granting our 
request to give up your minimum on 99 per cent of the traffic to grant 
our request on one per cent, it seems you would not be justified in doing 
so and we would not be justified in asking it and we would simply say 
let them stay at the minimum but include Epsom Salts in the grocery 
list at whatever the minimum is." 

No evidence was adduced by applicants directed toward an attack on the 
principle of the Classification rule, their request being for an exception to the 
Classification rule in the case of these commodities. 

The same provision for Epsom salts should be made in the " Grocery " 
list as in the " Chemicals, drugs, or medicines " list, as per page 81, item 38. 



25486—10 



146 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

XXV 

Shoe Dressing or Blacking, and Stove Polish 

Page 133, Items 22, 24 and 26; and page 140, Item 11 

Complaint of F. F. Dalley Co. of Canada, Ltd., Hamilton, Ont. (file 33365.12) 

The present and proposed provision for shoe dressing or blacking and stove 
polish or blacking is as shown below: — 



Classification No. 16 



L.C.L. 



C.L. 



Proposed Classification No. 17 



L.C.L. 



C.L. 



Page 91, Item 38 

Blacking or Polish, Shoe or Sto ve- 
in boxes or barrels 



Page 119, Items 56 and 57 

Polish — 
Shoe- 
Liquid or paste, in glass, 
earthenware or tin, packed 

in boxes or barrels 

In bulk, barrels, O.R. Lkge. . 
Stove, in boxes or barrels 



Page 183, Items 22, 24 and 26 

Dressing or Blacking, Shoe— 
Liquid — 

In glass or earthenware, pack- 
ed in barrels or boxes, 
O.R.B 

In metal cans partially jacket- 
ed 

In metal cans completely 
jacketed 

In metal cans in crates 

In metal cans in barrels or 
boxes 

In packages named, straight 
or mixed C.L. minimum 
weight 24, 000 pounds 

In bulk in barrels, O.R. Lkge. 

In bulk in barrels, straight or 
mixed C.L.', minimun weight 
30,000 pounds 

Solid— 

In fibre or metal cartons, in 
barrels or boxes 

In packages named, C.L., 
minimum weight 24,000 
pounds 

In bulk in barrels 

In bulk in barrels, C.L. mini- 
mum weight 30,000 pounds. 

Page llfi, Item 11 

Polish — 
Stove (Stove Blacking) — 

In glass or earthenware, pack- 
ed in barrels or boxes, 
O.R.B 

In cans, cartons or pails, in 
barrels or boxes 

In bars or cakes, in barrels or 
boxes 

In pails in crates 

In bulk in kits 

In packages named, C.L. mini- 
mum weight 24,000 pounds. . 

In bulk in barrels 

In bulk in barrels, C.L. mini- 
mum weight 30,000 pounds. . 



It will be noted that the description of package specifications is considerably 
enlarged in proposed Classification No. 17, ratings being provided for these 
commodities in certain shipping conditions which are not now specified. Other 
changes proposed as set out below: — 



SHOE DRESSING OR BLACKING 



1. Advance in the carload minimum weight on shipments in bulk in bar- 
rels from 24,000 pounds to 30,000 pounds. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 147 

2. An advance in the L.C.L. rating when shipped in glass or earthenware 
packed in barrels or boxes from 2nd to 1st class. 

3. A reduction in the ratings on the liquid dressing when shipped in metal 
cans in crates of one class, the current ratings under the provisions of Classi- 
fication rule 14 (m) being one class higher than proposed. 

STOVE BLACKING OR POLISH 

1. An advance in the L.C.L. rating from 2nd to 1st class when shipped 
in glass or earthenware packed in barrels or boxes. 

2. A reduction in the L.C.L. rating when shipped in bulk in barrels from 
2nd to 3rd class. 

3. A reduction in the carload rating when shipped in bulk in barrels from 
4th to 5th class, but an advance in the C.L. minimum weight from 24,000 pounds 
to 30,000 pounds. 

Mr. Sinnott, representing the F. F. Dalley Company of Canada, Limited, 
Hamilton, Ont., appeared before the Board objecting to what is set out in pro- 
posed Classification No. 17. Mr. Sinnott's position is set out on the record as 
follows: — 

" We desire to oppose the proposed L.C.L. rating on shoe and stove 
polish in glass. We would be content to allow the L.C.L. ratings to 
remain as they are in Classification No. 16, but if you will not consent 
to this, we propose that you reduce the L.C.L. rating on shoe and stove 
polish, solid in tins, to third class. We think also that these articles 
should be given fifth class C.L. when packed in glass or tin and shipped 
in barrels or boxes, and if this concession were made we would not oppose 
the raising of the minimum to 30,000 pounds instead of the present 
minimum of 24,000 pounds." 

Mr. Sinnott did not develop during the hearing the matter of the increase in 
the C.L. minimum, weight on the commodities when shipped in bulk in barrels, 
so that there is. nothing on the record relating to the reasonableness of the 
minimum, carload weight, or indicating whether or not there is any real objection 
thereto. 

In the revision of the classification the Special Classification Committee 
endeavoured to introduce more consistency in the rating as between articles 
shipped in glass, or earthenware, and the same articles shipped in fibre, or 
metal cans. The principle generally followed has been to introduce uniformity 
of one class, L.C.L., between the glass or earthenware container on the one 
hand, or the fibre or metal can on the other. 

Another matter to which Mr. Sinnott referred was the ratings of third 
class L.C.L. and 5th class C.L. provided for these commodities when shipped 
in bulk in barrels as compared with ratings, one class higher in both instances' 
when shipped in metal clans in barrels or boxes. Mr. Sinnott stated: — 

"The fact that the new Classification provides lower ratings on shoe 
and stove polish in bulk than on the same articles in boxes or barrels 
would seem to indicate that the carriers recognize the justice of 3rd 
class L.C.L. rating and 5th class: C.L. rating on shoe and stove polish 
when offered for shipment in certain packages." 

Mr. Sinnott further alleged that shoe or stove polish whether in glass or tins 
packed in boxes is much less risky as a shipping commodity than the same 
articles in bulk in barrels., and contended therefore, that the ratings when in 
tin or in glass should be the same as provided for in bulk in barrels. In further 
support' of this position Mr. Sinnott. referred to the report of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in the matter of O-So-Ezy Products Company et al. 
v. Director General, et al., 85 I.C.C. 187 ; and read into the record a portion of 

25486— 10£ 



148 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

the statement found at p. 191. A reading of the whole statement, however, 
hardly conveys the conclusion adduced by Mr. Sinnott in support of his argu- 
ment. 

Analysis of the pertinent portions of the decision in question shows that 
the Interstate Commerce Commission did not take the position that in all cases 
the rating on commodities in packages, in barrels or boxes should be no higher 
than on the same commodities in bulk, in barrels or boxes, but that it qualified 
this proposition by the statement that there might be a difference because the 
relationship in ratings between the two glasses is dependent upon other condi- 
tions as well. In the Consolidated Freight Classification in effect in the United 
States there are many items where the rating in bulk in barrels is one class 
lower than when in inner containers packed in barrels or boxes. 

Whole various exceptions: were taken by the representative of the com- 
plainant to the rating proposed, the exceptions were so general in character 
that the Board is not justified on the record in declining to permit the ratings 
proposed. 

With regard to the first cilass L.C.L. rating on the shoe and stove polish 
in glass, and also Mr. Sinnott's submission that a carload rating of fifth class 
should be provided when packed in glass or tin and shipped in barrels or boxes, 
it should, I think, be pointed out that surely before the Board would be war- 
ranted in condemning the classification ratings as proposed the party seeking 
to have the classification changed should develop his case on the record with 
completeness and in detail. In this, as well as many other cases, the parties 
chose to confine their submission largely to statements that are of a general 
nature, rather than getting down to details and evidence of the character that 
would go to the root of the matter and enable it to be dealt with both with 
intelligence and thoroughness. 

The opinion was expressed that in comparison with certain other articles 
the ratings sought would be reasonable, but having in mind that the classifica- 
tion contains but a few classes into which all the many articles must be placed, 
as to L.C.L. as well as C.L. ratings, an exact refinement of classification is 
impossible, and unless the number of classes was indefinitely increased there must 
always be articles in respect to which it will be very difficult to determine into 
which of two classes they should fall. While Mr. Sinnott did make some gen- 
eral statements as to articles, principally food products, in support of the ratings 
suggested, on the other hand there are other articles in glass rated 1st class 
L.C.L. and 4th class in C.L. — the same as here proposed — which may or may 
not be, from the standpoint of the various elements considered in establishing 
classification ratings, just as analogous to the commodities here in question as 
those to which reference was given by Mr. Sinnott, e.g., liquid laundry bluing, 
ink, mucilage, baking or yeast powder, or mixtures for baking or yeast powders, 
furniture polish, metal polish, adhesive paste N.O.I.B.N., curriers', harness or 
leather dressing or blacking. However, the Board did not have the benefit of 
having placed on the record any comparisons as to elements considered in fixing 
classification ratings, such as value, weight, bulk, risk, volume of traffic, char- 
acter of package, etc., so as to be in a position to form any definite conclusions, 
and consequently the case was not sufficiently developed to, in my opinion, 
warrant the Board in condemning the proposed ratings. It was not proven that 
the ratings assigned to these 'Commodities are not warranted in comparison with 
other articles which might from a classification standpoint be analogous. In 
other words, an exact refinement of the classification being very difficult, and it 
being at times a question into which class an article should be placed, is the 
Board warranted in reaching the conclusion that the 4th class carload rating 
on these commodities, as at present in effect and as proposed, or the L.C.L. 
ratings pioposed, are improper and unreasonable? I do not consider the matter 
was sufficiently developed to warrant the Board in so finding. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 149 

XXVI 

Dried Fruits 

Page 135, Items 20 and 22; page 136, Items 1 and 3 

Application of Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association (file 33365.13) 

No change in the classification ratings is shown in proposed Classification 
No. 17. Dried or evaporated apples are rated 3rd class L.C.L. and 5th class 
C.L. The other dried or evaporated fruits, which are principally imported, such 
as apricots, black berries, cherries, currants, nectarines, peaches, pears, plums, 
prunes, raisins, dates and figs are rated, L.C.L. , 1st class in glass or earthenware 
containers packed in barrels or boxes, and 2nd class in bags or in bulk in barrels 
or boxes; or in fibre or metal cans or cartons in barrels or boxes. The C.L. 
rating, in all the packages named, is 4th class. The present application .is to 
have the dried fruits last named lowered to 3rd class L.C.L. and 5th class C.L. 
While it has been held by this Board, as well as by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, that the fact that a classification has long existed is persuasive of 
its reasonableness, at the same time there might be a change in conditions under 
which the Board would decide that there should be a change in the classification 
ratings. 

The application now before the Board is not new, the same issue having 
been squarely before the Board in 1913 upon the application of the 
Toronto Board of Trade, for a reduction of the freight classification ratings on 
dried fruit (file 19367.8). The judgment of the Board then was that the appli- 
cation should not be granted, this decision being covered by the Board's Order 
No. 20010, dated August 11, 1913. At that time the case was very fully pre- 
sented and the decision of the Board was reached after carefully considering all 
submissions of the applicant. The application at that time was supported by 
the Dominion Wholesale Grocers' Guild of Montreal, the Ontario Wholesale 
Grocers' Guild of Hamilton, and the Boards of Trade of Montreal, Winnipeg; 
and Saskatoon; the Edmonton Board of Trade objected and the Calgary Whole- 
sale Grocers desired the present ratings maintained. 

It is contended that as compared with 1913 there has been an increase in 
the consumption of dried fruits and that it presents a larger competition which 
the jobber did not have to face when the matter was last heard. No evidence as 
to the latter is submitted. The statements as to increases in consumption were 
also general. 

The Dominion Government statistics of imports of dried fruits into Canada 
from all countries shows, taking in each instance the year previous to the case 
being before the Board, in 1912, 62,457,283 pounds as against 66,659,127 pounds 
in 1923, or an increase of 6 per cent in eleven years, which cannot be said, 
taking into consideration the increase of population in the same period, to be 
a very large increase. 

It was contended that the relative percentages which freight rates bear to 
dried fruits are much higher than on other commodities taking second and fourth 
class rating. Evidence in support of this contention was not adduced. 

Mr. Ransom pointed out that these dried fruits were largely imported from 
the United States and claimed that it would be inconsistent and unreasonable 
to require the Canadian carriers to classify these United States dried fruits lower 
than they are classified in the United States where they are produced and where 
the volume moving is much greater than it will be within Canada for a great 
many years to come. He filed a comparison with the classification ratings con- 
tained in the United States Consolidated Freight Classification. 

Dried fruits for 30 years have been classified as at present. The question 
of the reasonableness of these ratings was fully gone into and carefully con- 
sidered in the 1913 icase and the present ratings were confirmed. I do not con- 



150 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

sider applicants have made out a case on the present record that would justify 
the Board in modifying or reversing its decision of 1913. The following 
remarks of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the case of W. E. Caldwell 
Co. v. C. I. & L. Ry. Co., 20 I.C.C. 418, seem particularly apropos:— 

" So long as the thousands of articles offered for transportation are 
divided into a comparatively small number of classes for rate-making 
purposes, it is obvious that minute variations in value of different 
articles, or dissimilar values of the same article, cannot be precisely 
reflected in the classification. In the absence of evidence that the rate 
resulting from the classification is unreasonable or otherwise unlawful, 
it must fairly appear that a particular article is not rated with other 
articles similar in value, weight and other essential transportation 
qualities, before the Commission will require a change of classification. 
In the present case there was no evidence that the rates charged were 
unreasonable for the service performed, or that they subjected complain- 
ant or its traffic to undue discrimination." 

XXVII 

Chewing Gum 

Page 136, Item 14 

Complaint of Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., Toronto (file 333654) 

The provision in proposed Classification No. 17 for chewing gum is as 
follows: — 

Gum. chewing: L.C.L. C.L. 

In glass packed in barrels or boxes, O.R.B 1 

In boxes or cartons in barrels or boxes 2 

In packages named, C.L., Min. Wt. 24,000 lbs 4 

No change in the classification of this commodity is proposed and the 
present and proposed ratings have been in effect since 1902. Previous to that 
time there was only a rating of first class on gum in packages, any quantity. 
Complainant's contention is that they should have a rating of 2nd class L.C.L. 
on chewing gum shipped in glass packed in barrels or boxes. They are not 
applying for a reduction in the L.C.L. rating when shipped in boxes or cartons 
in barrels or boxes. Complainants described in considerable detail their 
method of packing this commodity when shipped in glass, contending it was a 
superior package to many similar containers offered for transportation and 
equally as good and desirable a package as when shipped in cartons or boxes, 
thus entitling them to the same rating. They also expressed the opinion that 
inasmuch as gum in glass or cartons takes the same rating in carloads, the 
same rating should be applicable to L.C.L. shipments of the same commodity. 

They alleged their commodity, as they pack it in glass for shipment, is 
equal to and superior to many other packages being handled by the carriers 
at 2nd class ratings, such as butter coloring, cheese, chloride of lime, prepared 
cocoanut, ground coffee, cleaning and sweeping compounds, dessert prepara- 
tions, fish, meats, milk, etc. With regard to the articles just named, there is 
obviously no particular similarity, nor reason why the rating on any of the 
articles named should determine the rating on chewing gum from the stand- 
point of discrimination, because there is absolutely no competition between 
chewing gum and the other articles. It may be also stated that with regard 
to practically all the articles named by complainants no change in ratings from 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 151 

those at present in effect are being proposed; further shipments of said com- 
modities in glass are rated one class higher L.C.L. than when packed in wood, 
metal or fibre containers, or in other words, there is the same distinction as 
between the glass and other container as in the case of chewing gum. The 
general principle of the proposed classification — although there are excep- 
tions is that with respect to commodities shipped in glass they are rated one 

class higher, L.C.L. , than the same article when packed in fibre, wood or metal 
containers. This is more fully commented upon in section 18 herein dealing 
with shoe dressing and stove polish. 

In accordance with long standing and usual practice the same ratings are 
applied on all these commodities in carloads whether in glass, fibre, wood or 
metal containers, which is perhaps explained in a measure by the relatively 
smaller hazard in handling carload than in handling less than carload ship- 
ments. It may be noted that so far as the Official or Western Classifications, 
in effect in the United States, are concerned, they make the same distinction 
as in Canada with respect to L.C.L. shipments of chewing gum, that is to say, 
the glass container is rated 1st class L.C.L., and the cartons or boxes 2nd class 
L.C.L. In those classifications all the packages named are rated 3rd class in 
carloads, as compared with 4th class in the Canadian Classification. In the 
Southern Classification a 2nd class rating applies in whatever container shipped 
or whether shipped in carload or L.C.L. quantities. The situation in the 
United States Classifications, is, generally speaking, the same as that in 
Canada, viz: glass containers take a rating one or two classes higher than the 
fibre or metal container, and all these containers take the same carload rating. 

In Indian Packing Corporation v. Director General, as Agent, Ann Arbor 
Railroad Company, et al, decided November 3, 1924, in 93 I.C.C. 400, there 
was before the Interstate Commerce Commission complaints from corporations 
and associations of packers of food products in glass containers, also manu- 
facturers of glass containers, throughout the territory covered by the Official 
Classification, in which complainants asked for the same L.C.L. rating on 
shipments of numerous commodities in glass packed in barrels or boxes, as 
provided when shipped in metal cans packed in barrels or boxes. The changes 
applied for by complainants were not granted, the decision of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission being that the articles described " when in glass, packed 
in barrels or boxes are and for the future will be unreasonable to the extent 
that they are or may be higher than the first numbered class above the less 
than carload ratings contemporaneously applicable to the same articles when 
in metal cans, packed in barrels or boxes." 

Complainant admitted that the reduction in rating sought would not be of 
any benefit with regard to a good many of their shipments in glass by reason of 
the application of the minimum charge or smalls rule. According to their sub- 
mission, the reduction would only affect a small percentage of their total ship- 
ments. 

Complainants did not adduce evidence indicating that the rating on ship- 
ments in glass was unreasonable per se, or subjected the commodity to an 
unreasonable toll, and nothing that was submitted furnished any justification, 
in my opinion, for reducing the present rating, which has been in effect since 
1902. The record does not establish that the rating on shipments in cartons 
metal or wood afford a proper measure of the reasonableness of the rating on 
shipments in glass. I do not consider complainants have made out a case 
warranting any direction to change the classification ratings that are at present 
in effect and continued in Classification No. 17. 



152 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

XXVIII 

Fruit Jar Rings, Rubber 

Page 137, Item 9 

Application of Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association (file 33365.13) 

At the present time there is no specific item providing for rubber fruit jar 
rings, and item 12 on p. 122 of Classification No. 16 covering rubber articles, 
X.O S., in packages, at rating of 1st class L.C.L., is applicable. In proposed 
Classification No. 17 a rating when shipped in boxes of 2nd class L.C.L. and 
4th class C.L., minimum weight 30,000 pounds, is provided for. This is a 
reduction of one class with respect to L.C.L. shipments and three classes for 
carloads. The carload rating is the same as provided for other rubber articles 
under the " Rubber and, rubber goods " list in proposed Classification No. 17, 
such as belting, heels or soles, horseshoe pads, hose, mats and matting, stair 
treads, rubber tile, etc. The application of the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' 
Association is that these rubber fruit jar rings should be given a carload rating 
of 5th class with the object presumably of enabling the mixture of rubber fruit 
jar rings at that rating with other 5th class articles in mixed grocery cars. 
Applicants stated that fruit jars and metal fruit jar rings are rated 5th class 
C.L. and as each fruit jar is equipped with a rubber ring it is their contention 
that the latter should also take the same rating in carloads. No submission 
was made by applicants with respect to the L.C.L. rating which on fruit jars is 
3rd class and on the metal rings 2nd. Applicants did not adduce any evidence 
whatever to show, from a classification standpoint, what analogy, if any, there 
is between rubber fruit jar rings and the fruit jars themselves from the point 
of value and other relevant factors that would ordinarily be given weight in 
arriving at classification ratings. No mention whatever of values was made. 
Mr. Ransom stated that the ratings proposed were agreed to by the rubber 
manufacturers and were, he alleged, consistent as compared with ratings on 
other rubber articles and that this was a case where the grocery trade wanted 
the 5th class carload rating solely for the purpose of enabling the mixing of a 
small quantity of rubber fruit jar rings with 5th class mixed grocery carloads. 
It was pointed out by Mr. Ransom that when shipping fruit jars the rubber 
ring is included as a part of the jar, and it is only the shipment separately of 
solid rubber rings in boxes that is involved in this application. 

It may be here pointed out that to ignore the rating properly and reason- 
ably applicable to an article considered by itself, and to provide a lower rating 
than would thereby be established on its own merits solely to permit the mixing 
privilege, would do violence to one of the most important principles of classifica- 
tion making, always hitherto held to be proper and consistent. To lower a rating 
which is reasonable per se, for such a reason, would inevitably lead to the 
requirement that all articles which shippers' convenience would suggest be 
shipped together should be given the same rating. Such a principle would 
be obviously unsound and absolutely demoralize and disrupt the structure of 
the classification. For this application to succeed it would be necessary for the 
applicants to make out a case that the ratings on these articles are in them- 
selves unreasonable; not merely that it is the desire of applicants to have a 
reduced rating provided simply for mixing purposes. Applicants not having 
met the burden of showing that the proposed ratings (which are a substantial 
reduction from those now in effect) are unreasonable, the Board would not be 
justified in directing that any change be made in what is proposed. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 153 

XXIX 

Macaroni, Noodles, Spaghetti and Vermicelli 

Page 137, Item 20 

Application of the Canadian Macaroni Manufacturers? Association (file 33365.9) 

No change in ratings is proposed in Classification No. 17 from those at 
present provided in Classification No. 16 (shown below), but application is made 
by the Canadian Macaroni Manufacturers' Association for a reduction in rating, 
to 4th class L.C.L. and 8th class C.L. with" carload minimum weight of 30,000 
pounds. 

Prior to 1912 provision was made in the Canadian Freight Classification for 
macaroni, spaghetti and vermicelli at ratings of 2nd class, L.C.L., and 4th class, 
C.L. Under date of August 17, 1911, the Montreal Board of Trade applied to 
the Board for an Order directing the railways to amend the Classification by 
reducing the ratings on these articles to 4th class L.C.L., and 5th class, C.L. 
Subsequently, the railway companies agreed to make, and the applicants agreed 
to accept, a reduction in the carload rating from 4th to 5th class, with no change 
in the L.C.L. rating, and the Board's Order No. 15635, dated November 21, 1911, 
ordered that a supplement to the Classification legalizing this arrangement be 
made effective not later than January 15, 1912. Later, effective June 26, 1922, 
in Supplement No. 19 to Classification No. 16, a reduction was made in the 
L.C.L. rating, and the present item, No. 2 on p. 7 of Supplement to the Classifi- 
cation referred to, reads as follows: — 

Macaroni, noodles, spaghetti or vermicelli: L.C.L. C.L, 

In single bags 2 5 

In double bags 3 5 

In barrels or boxes 3 5 

With respect to the further reduction in ratings now applied for, the application 
is based largely on the following grounds: — 

1. That reduction in ratings should be made to enable the Canadian Manu- 
facturers to meet competitive conditions, i.e., foreign importations; 

2. That these articles compare favourably as to weight, bulk and value with 
certain cereal products, and are also a cereal food product, consequently should 
have ratings as low as provided for those cereal foods which are rated 4th class 
L.C.L. and 8th class C.L. 

So far as relates to that phase of applicant's argument dealing with reduced 
ratings to meet foreign competition, the evidence adduced by applicants dealing 
with competitive conditions was not, of a nature that would warrant any direc- 
tion iby the Board. The evidence as to importations consisted largely of general 
statements, although the competition of Buffalo and Minneapolis was specifically 
referred to. With regard to Buffalo, shipments to Toronto were alluded to. By 
reason of the Official Classification governing on the international movement, 
which provides a lower L.C.L. rating than contained in the Canadian Classi- 
fication, it was stated that to Toronto the rate from Buffalo was lower than from 
St. Catharines, there being two manufacturers of macaroni products at the point 
last named, the imported product from Buffalo passing by their doors at the 
lower rate, the difference being 3 cents per 100 pounds. Mr. Ransom, for the 
Canadian Freight Association, stated, and his evidence was uncontradicted, that 
some time ago they advised applicants they would investigate the rate situation 
and if they found a competitive condition that was reacting detrimentally to the 
Canadian manufacturer a commodity rate to meet the Buffalo competition would, 
if necessary, be established; that their investigation developed the total ship- 
ments from Buffalo into Canada amounted to from 1,500 to 2,000 pounds every 
four months, or an arpproximate average of not more than 6,000 pounds per year. 
There is also a manufacturer in Toronto whose production is small. 



154 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



So far as relates to Minneapolis, applicants simply made the general state- 
ment that there were large macaroni manufacturers at that point who shipped 
into western Canada, but no details as to volume of the traffic were given by 
applicants, Mr. Ransom stated in substance (pp. 9598-99), that investigation had 
been made of the movements from Minneapolis into Winnipeg and that in one 
year this had amounted to eight carloads. It is also stated that the eight car- 
loads in question carried a 'brand of "Mother's Macaroni," which was advertised 
largely in the Winnipeg territory and sells for a higher price than the Canadian 
macaroni. 

It may be further noted that the distance from Minneapolis to Winnipeg is, 
oi course, much less than from eastern Canada, and also that from Minneapolis 
to western Canadian points the Canadian Classification apfplies, so that any 
reduction made in the ratings in the Canadian Classification would apply equally 
from Minneapolis and eastern Canada, and therefore (competing manufacturers 
would be in just the same relative position from a classification standpoint as 
they are to-day. 

Applicants further cited, dealing with competition and importation, figures 
o\ the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for imported macaroni and vermicelli for 
12 months ending March, 1922, 1923 and 1924, which showed that there had been 
an increase in the imports. However, taking the figures as to importations over 
a period of years, they are very inconclusive. Below are the importations for 
fiscal years ending March 31, as noted: — 

IMPORTATIONS OF MACARONI AND VERMICILLI 

(Fiscal years ending March 31) 



Years 


Pounds 


Years 


Pounds 


1909 


3,874,345 
4,597,129 
5,355,769 
6,257,035 
8,035,873 
10,543,569 
6,701,681 
2,564,933 


1917 


1,973,272 


1910... 


1918 


1,067,255 


1911 . . : 


1919 


115,272 


1912 


1920 


949,960 


1913 


1921 


911,004 


1914 


1922 


1,096,752 


1915 


1923 


1,249,498 


1916 


1924 


1,626,014 









The effect of classification ratings on these fluctuating figures of importation 
is not apparent. The figures as to importation are also inconclusive for the 
reason that no figures were put in showing the volume of the total production 
of Canadian manufacturers, so that no comparison can be made as between the 
volume of the importations and the volume of the products of the Canadian 
manufacturers. 

The cereal products, with which comparison is made, are rated 4th class, 
L.C.L., and 8th class C.L. It is contended by the complainants that there is 
similarity between these products and macaroni from the standpoint of packing, 
value and weight. On the other hand, there is a much larger tonnage of cereal 
products. The ratings on these are low and there is no real competition between 
macaroni and these commodities. 

Applicants refered to a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 
Sycamore Manufacturing Company v. Director-General, et al, 81 I.C.C. 108, 
and stated in that particular case the Interstate Commerce Commission found 
that the rates on macaroni in carloads were unreasonable. On refering to this 
case, however, and reading the whole decision, I do not see wherein it supports 
applicants' contention that macaroni products should take the same ratings as 
the cereal food preparations, as the Interstate Commerce Commission, in the 
decision in question, while directing, as stated by applicants, a reduction in the 
rates on macaroni products, held that macaroni products were not entitled to 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 155 

the same rates as cereal food preparations and the rates they directed were 
higher. Reference may also be made to National Association of Macaroni and 
Noodle Manufacturers of America v. Alabama Great Southern Railway Com- 
pany, et al, 50 I.C.C. 289. In this case the complainants applied for the same 
rates on macaroni products as on cereal foods. The Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission ,found the rates on macaroni products were not shown to be unreasonable 
and the complaint was dismissed. 

The ratings on macaroni products proposed in Classification No. 17 and 
which are a eontinuance of those now provided in Classification No. 16, may be 
approved. 

XXX 

L.C.L. Ratings on Salt, Common 

Page 140, Item 19 

Complaint of Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association (file 33365.13) 

The submission of Mr. Balfour, representing the Canadian Wholesale 
Grocers' Association, was as follows: — 

" We request that salt in bags, in barrels should be carried at the 

same class as salt loose in barrels, namely at fourth class L.C.L. rating, 

the same as it is carried to-day. W T e also request that a fifth class rating 

be given on salt with a minimum of 24,000 pounds." 

So far as relates to the L.C.L. rating, Mr. Balfour again, at p. 9673, stated: — 

" I asked that salt in bags when packed in barrels be carried at 4th 
class the same as it is now." 

There is a misunderstanding on the part of applicants here as there is no 
change being proposed in the L.C.L. ratings on salt. In Classification No. 16, 
effective March 1, 1913, it was provided on p. 93, item 78, that sale " in small 
bags or boxes " would be rates 3rd class L.C.L., a rating of 4th class being also 
shown for salt " in sacks or barrels." This was a provision carried forward from 
previous classifications and one that had been effective for many years previous 
to 1913. In Supplement No. 5 to Classification No. 16, effective November 1, 
1915, these shipping descriptions were changed to read, — 

L.CJL. 

In bags, packed in barrels or boxes 3 

In bulk in bags or barrels 4 

In submitting this change in phraseology to the Board at that time, the 
Canadian Freight Association stated that the purpose of same was to clarify 
the shipping descriptions, there having been in some instances a misinterpretation 
placed thereon inasmuch as the description " in sacks or barrels " was intended 
to cover shipments in bulk in sacks or barrels and not the small 5- and 10-pound 
sacks that were packed in barrels. Proof of Supplement No. 5 was sent to the 
various trade organizations and public bodies and there was no exception then 
taken to this change in wording, which was merely in the nature of clarifying 
the item rather than any suggestion of an increase in the rating. The next 
change was in Supplement No. 12 to Classification No. 16, effective July 21, 
1919, when the shipping description " in bags packed in barrels or boxes " was 
changed to read: " In cloth pockets in bags, barrels or boxes," but without any 
change in the rating, and this latter description is that now in effect as well as 
what is proposed in Classification No. 17, so that the misunderstanding on the 
part of Mr. Balfour will be obvious. The salt shipped in bulk in bags or barrels 
is rated one class lower L.C.L., or 4th class, and the justification given by Chair- 



156 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



man Ransom, of the Canadian Freight Asssociation, for the distinction is that 
one is table salt and the other a commercial salt, live stock salt or for freezing 
purposes, being a different class of salt and of a lower value. It would appear 
from a price list of the Canadian Salt Company, filed by Mr. Balfour, and with- 
out deducting the trade discounts, that the table salt in the small bags or pockets 
ranges from $3.75 to $5.50 per barrel as compared with fine salt in bulk in barrels 
at $1.75 per barrel and the coarse salt at $2.05, while what is described as fac- 
tory filled dairy cheese and special butter salt ranges from $3 to $3.90 per 
barrel. Mr. Balfour's submission was based on a misunderstanding and the 
Board would not be warranted from the meagre record here in condemning the 
L.C.L. ratings that have been in effect for a great many years past. If it is the 
allegation of applicants that there is some discrimination or inconsistency, then 
the matter should be more fully developed through the means of a subsequent 
formal application. 

The question of minimum carload weight has been dealt with along with 
other similar items in section XXIV. 



XXXI 

Tobacco, Plug or Twist 
Page 143, Item 26 

Application of Canadian Wholesale Growers' Association (file 33365.13) 
The present and proposed ratings on plug tobacco are as follows: — 



Classification No. 16 


L.C.L. 


C.L. 


Classification No. 17 


L.C.L. 


C.L. 


Tobacco, Plug, in caddies or 
butts — 
Loose 


D-l 
3 


4 
5 


Plug or Twist — 
In butts or caddies, weighing 
not less than 10 pounds each, 
loose 


1 

3 
3 




Two or more crated or securely 






In butts or caddies, two or more 
in crates of cleated or strapped 
together 

In packages in boxes. . , 






- 




In packages named, C.L., mini- 
mum weight 24, 000 pounds 


5 



The application of the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association is for a rating 
of 3rd class L.C.L., instead of 1st class, on this plug or twist tobacco in butts 
or caddies weighing not less than 10 pounds each, loose. 

At the present time the rating in this shipping condition is D-l and reduction 
to 1st is proposed. While Mr. Balfour stated they had understood a 3rd class 
rating would be provided for, Mr. Ransom stated the record of their Classi- 
fication Committee clearly showed that a rating of 1st class was requested and 
finally agreed to by the Classification Committee. Mr. Ransom further stated 
that the carriers would perhaps bring up separately at a later date the question 
of a revision of classification of tobacco and contended that the change as shown 
in proposed Classification No. 17 should stand in the meantime. As to whether 
the rating in this particular shipping condition is right or wrong, this was not 
argued by Mr. Ransom. 

In proposed Classification No. 17 the carriers have already made some 
changes in the ratings on tobacco, e.g., a reduction in the carload rating on 
chewing and smoking tobacco, cut or granulated, in pails, two or more in crates 
cleated or strapped together; also in the current C.L. rating on plug tobacco in 
caddies, loose; as well as the reduction in the L.C.L. rating already referred to. 
In view of this, and also that there is nothing definite before the Board in the 




REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 157 

matter of a later application for a revision of classification, I see no reason why 
the less than carload rating that is here in controversy should not foe now dealt 
with on its merits as indicated on the record here before the Board. 

Mr. Balfour pointed out that under the proposed classification provision two 
small boxes of tobacco weighing 2^ pounds each could be nailed or cleated 
together and shipped at 3rd class rating L.C.L. while if a single 20 pound caddy 
of tobacco were shipped the rating to-day would be D-l, and as proposed 1st 
class. He contended a single caddy under such circumstances offered a far 
better package for transportation than the two light caddies cleated or nailed 
together, and it is not apparent that there is any good argument against this 
contention, at least there is none on the record. While it may foe fairly stated 
that this apparent inconsistency has existed for a good many years, that would 
appear to be because the issue has not been previously raised and does not 
constitute, in itself, any valid reason for the continuance of an anomalous situa- 
tion when squarely before the Board on the present record. The provision for 
plug or twist tobacco in butts or caddies weighing not less than 10 pounds each, 
loose, should be changed from 1st to 3rd class, L.C.L. 

XXXII 

Asphalt Shingles and Roofing 

Page 146, Item 9; page 155, Item 37 

Complaint of Toronto Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Company, Limited, Mount 
Dennis, Ont., re increase in minimum carload weight (file 33365.18) 

No change is proposed in the ratings on asphalt shingles or roofing and 
the complaint is not against the ratings but is with respect to the proposal to 
revise the carload minimum weight from 24,000 to 30,000 pounds. The physical 
minimum, or, in other words, the weight representing the quantity which can 
be loaded into a standard car from the point of view of space, or the theoretical 
number of packages capable of being loaded into a standard car, determined by 
dividing the cubical contents of the car by the cubical contents of one of the 
packages, multiplied by the weight of the package, is not here in question. 
Complainants stated that a package of asphalt shingles weighing 200 pounds 
would occupy three cubic feet of space, so that taking the standard car of 2,448 
cubic feet the physical minimum, making some allowance for possible unfilled 
space owing to the dimensions of the package, would be somewhere around 
150,000 pounds per car, based on complainants figures. What is involved, there- 
fore, is the question of the commercial minimum, viz., that minimum which takes 
into consideration trade requirements, conditions of manufacture, distribution 
and consumption. Complainants stated that their average load was around 
30,000 pounds. It was readily admitted by complainants that the larger points 
could easily take the proposed minimum weight, or more, but the complaint 
was based very largely on the ground that it was alleged it would deprive com- 
plainants of the privilege of shipping in carloads to the tillage communities 
that now with difficulty handle a 24,000-pound car during the roofing season. 
In effect, therefore, this is a request that the Board direct the carriers to 
establish a carload minimum weight based solely on the quantity that com- 
plainants can ship at one time to the small community, disregarding entirely the 
minimum that can be readily shipped to the larger points, and ail other con- 
siderations that are ordinarily weighed in arriving at a conclusion as to fixation 
of a f°.ir and reasonable minimum carload weight. Classification is ; of necessity, 
a matter of averaging. Whatever minimum weight is fixed, there will be cases 
where there will be difficulty in making up that weight. The principle that is 
really involved here has already been dealt with by the Board. 



158 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The Board has held that a railway cannot reasonably be required by regu- 
lative tribunals to fix a minimum based on the fact that the business is such 
that it takes a season or more to dispose of a car of brick. 

Western Retail Merchants 'Assn. vs. C.P.R., 20 Can. Ry. Cas., 155. 

" Trade conditions are not necessarily conclusive in connection with minima." 

Dominion Millers' Assn., Toronto Board of Trade and Montreal Corn 
Exchange vs. Can. Frt. Assn., 21 Can. Ry. Cas., 83, at p. 87. 

Th* evidence given by complainants as to the number of cars shipped at 
24.000 pounds minimum and the proportion of these to its total output was very 
indefinite, consisting largely of general statements. 

There is a large tonnage of the commodities here involved and there has 
been no objection or complaint as to the revision of minimum weight from any 
other interested shipper. Mr. Ransom, for the Canadian Freight Association, 
stated their Special Classification Committee had met various roofing manu- 
facturers and discussed this matter quite thoroughly, and they had agreed to 
the revision in question. Obviously, all manufacturers are on an absolute equal- 
ity and there is not here the situation that the complainants are required to load 
any greater minimum weight than any other competing manufacturer. 

It appears from the record that complainants desire special consideration 
on the ground that they are a comparatively new industry competing with older 
established competitors whose goods are perhaps better known and advertised, 
with the result that complainants have more difficulty than their competitors in 
loading the carload minimum weight to village communities, although they stated 
they had no trouble of this kind in the cities. This feature of the matter is 
outside the powers of the Board. 

Complainants also stated that in consideration of the present minimum 
carload weight on their outward product being continued they would be willing 
to make a sacrifice with respect to the minimum carload weight on their 
inbound material. However, upon being questioned as to the weights of their 
incoming material it developed from their statement that they are now loading 
such cars up to practically their weight carrying capacity, so that this suggestion 
has no real force or meaning even if it were a factor to be properly considered 
in connection with the establishment of minimum carload weight on the outward 
product. 

There was also the suggestion that the revision in the minimum carload 
weight might involve an increased cost to> the consumer, but on the record as 
developed it is not at all clear that any such, result will follow. 

Having in view that the average loading of complainants' shipments is 
30,000 pounds.; that this is so much less than the physical loading capacity of 
the car; that in the revision of the Classification there has been a corresponding 
increase in the minimum carload weight on other roofing materials competitive 
with the asphalt roofing, I consider the revised minimum weight is a reasonable 
commercial minimum and should be approved. 

XXXIII 

Minimum Carload Weight on Barbed Wire 

Page 160, Item 22 

Complaint oj the United Grain Groviers, Limited, Winnipeg (file 33365. Gen.) 

The ratings on barbed wire are not being changed but it is proposed in 
Classification No. 17 to raise the minimum carload weight from 24,000 to 36,000 
pounds. Mr. 'Stimpson, representing the United Grain Growers, objected to 
this, alleging that the proposed minimum carload weight would represent a 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 159 

quantity in excess of what could be ordinarily purchased at one time by retailers 
and co-operative associations operating in the smaller communities and they 
might be thereby (forced to purchase from the nearest distributing centre in 
L.C.L. quantities. Mr. Stimpson does not contend that the proposed minimum 
is unreasonable from the commercial standpoint in all cases, because he stated 
that the shipments into Winnipeg would run from 36,000 to 60,000 pounds, and 
that the average loading would be around 40,000 to 45,000 pounds. Mr. Ransom, 
for the Canadian Freight Association, submitted that so far as the physical 
loading of cars was concerned a. weight twice that proposed could be carried 
easily, and that in fixing the minimum at 36,000 pounds the carriers felt they 
had given due consideration to the question of a reasonable commercial mini- 
mum. The situation appears to be, therefore, that there is no difficulty in 
loading the proposed minimum, or considerably more, to the larger centres, but 
it is at times difficult to load the proposed minimum, weight to the smaller 
destination points. Unfortunately, the matter was. not very fully developed 
on the record so that there is no information before the Board showing the 
general average loading of this traffic; the proportion which moves to the 
distributing centre as compared with direct shipments to ultimate destinations; 
or what the average weight has been with respect to shipments of 
the character last named. The proposed minimum Weight on barbed wire is in 
line with that which has. been fixed for 1 other plain, coppered, ga.lvana.zed or 
tinned wire, as well as other commodities which, from a classification stand- 
point, would appear analogous, What is stated in connection with the minimum 
weight on asphalt shingles and roofing in Section XXXII is also very pertinent 
to what is here involved. What is proposed may be approved subject to the 
right of the complainants to. bring the matter up as a separate issue, if desired, 
when it can be much more fully developed than on the present record. 

XXXIV 

Ratings on Foreign Wines 

Page 174, Item 30 

Application of Mr. de Rousay de Sales, Consular Agent for France, Calgary, 

Alta. (file 33365. Gen.) 

At the Calgary sittings of the Board on July 7, 1924, some submissions 
were made by Mr. de Rousay de Bales, Consular Agent for France, with respect 
to the classification of imported French wines. The matter came on without 
prior written submissions or notice and was not sufficiently developed to enable 
any action to be taken on what was then submitted to the Board. Mr, Ransom, 
for the Canadian Freight Association, stated he had no knowledge of the appli- 
cation coming up and that in conference with Mr. de Rousay de Sales he under- 
stood that the question was to be left to the Consul-General for France at Mon- 
treal to deal with the carriers, which Mr. de Rousay de Sales confirmed. There 
has been nothing subsequently before the Board from the Consul-General at 
Montreal or from Mr. Ransom. Subsequently, at Winnipeg on November 20, 
there was heard by the Board the application of the Manitoba Government 
Liquor Control Commission et al. for a modification of the existing ratings on 
liquors, as well as those proposed in Classification No. 17, which, I take it, 
would have included the foreiegn wines. This application was refused by the 
Board by Order No. 35865, dated December 9, 1924. There are no ratings 
being increased in proposed Classification No. 17, the only change being reduc- 
tion from D-l to \\ T 1 L.C.L. with respect to foreign wines in bulk in barrels. 



160 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

XXXV 

Minimum Cakload Weight on Lumber 

Page 178, Items 2 and 4 

Complaint of the Western Retail Lumbermen's Association, per Mr. H. H. Shiels. 

(file 33365. Gen.) 

At the Winnipeg sittings Mr. H. H. Shiels, representing the Western Retail 
Lumbermen's Association, complained of the advance in minimum carload 
weight on lumber from 30,000 to 36,000 pounds. The general movement of 
lumber is under special commodity tariffs at minimum weights in excess of 
those provided for in the classification. The movements here concerned that 
would be affected by the change in the classification minimum cover shipments 
between retail lumber yards at prairie points. According to Mr. Shiels' sub- 
mission there is more or less distribution between these yards and the proposed 
minimum of 36,000 pounds is considerably in excess of the weight of such 
average shipment. As presented, there is not here involved the question of 
physical minimum, but purely that of the commercial minimum, and the latter 
not with respect to movements generally, but the much smaller volume of 
inter-yard movement. It is stated these shipments run from 18,000 pounds 
up. Mr. Shiels stated he was not in a position to say how many cars per 
annum would be covered by this inter-yard movement. Mr. Ransom for the 
Canadian Freight Association, contended that inasmuch as lumber is a com- 
modity that does not deteriorate to any extent if stored it would be no hard- 
ship upon the yards to take two or three thousand feet extra of lumber, which 
would represent the increase in the minimum weight, and if the carriers were 
to establish carload minimum weights to meet the smallest commercial demand 
it would in the final analysis react to the detriment of the public at large, 
as public interest is best served by the economy in transportation cost that 
results from heavier loading of cars. 

The issue here is substantially on all fours with that raised in the case of 
the minimum carload weights on asphalt shingles and roofing (section XXXII) 
and for reasons more fully referred to therein I do not consider any change 
in the proposed minimum carload weight should be directed. 

XXXVI 

Machinery and Machines 

Page 178, Note 3 

Complaint of the Dodge Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Toronto, et al. 

(file 33365.35) 

The Dodge Manufacturing Company of Canada, Limited, of Toronto, filed 
written submissions under date of May 22, 1924, complaining of the provisions 
of proposed Classification No. 17 which made the rating on power transmission 
machinery 5th class in C.L., while with certain other machinery classified 6th 
class C.L. many articles detailed under the heading of power transmission 
machinery could be included at the C.L. rating applicable on such machinery, 
under the provisions of note 3, page 178. They contended that a classification 
provision under which they were compelled to ship their power transmission 
machinery at 5th class C.L., while other manufacturers had the privilege of 
including articles of power transmission with their machines at 6th class C.L., 
was an undue discrimination against them. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 161 

There was a further letter from the Dodge Manufacturing Company under 
date of May 23 in which they referred to elevating and conveying machinery 
covered by items 14 and 34 on page 183, rated 5th class C.L., and with respect 
to which they maintained a 6th class rating should be provided and applied 
to be given a hearing when the subject of proposed Classification No. 17 was 
listed for hearing 'by the Board. In this connection it may be stated that 
although notified of the Board's sittings, no further representations were made 
to the Board and it may be that the complaint should be considered withdrawn. 
In any event, the matter was not developed in any way, so that no expression 
of opinion could be here made on the merits of the case. 

Under date of September 30, 1924, Chairman Ransom, of the Canadian 
Freight Association, filed with the Board proposed Supplement No. 1 to pro- 
posed Canadian Freight Classification No. 17, which provided for reduction 
from 5th to 6th class in the carload rating on certain articles of machinery and 
the elimination in connection therewith, also other items rated 6th class, of all 
reference to note 3 on page 178. There is quoted below Mr. Ransom's letter 
setting out the explanation for the change made and indicating the publicity 
given to the matter: — 

" I enclose herewith three copies of proposed Supplement One to 
proposed Canadian Freight Classification No. 17, which was filed with 
the Board on April 9, 1924. This supplement, you will observe, deals 
solely with items listed under the distinctive heading of ' Machinery and 
machines.' When Classification No. 17 was prepared, the carload ratings 
proposed for all of the machines named in this Supplement was 5th class 
and by reference to note 3, item 25, page 178, it was permissible to include 
in the car all of the articles named in note 3 at the 5th class rating as 
proposed on the machinery. 

Just before filing the Classification with the Board, the C.L. ratings 
on saw-mill and woodworking machinery, as covered by item 32, page 
189, and item 2, page 190, were reduced to 6th class. After the proposed 
Classification was filed with the Board, the manufacturers of certain 
kinds of machinery objected to the increase from 6th to 5th class in the 
carload rating and at a conference between the manufacturers and our 
committee held in Montreal, the manufacturers stated that while they 
were agreeable to an increase in the carload minimum weight on some of 
the machinery, they protested vigorously against any advance in the 
existing carload ratings. The Committee finally agreed to continue the 
present 6th class C.L. ratings on the items of machinery referred to. At 
this conference note 3 on page 178 of proposed classification was entirely 
overlooked by our Committee and no reference was made to it in our 
discussions with the manufacturers. 

As practically all of the articles in note 3 have, for years past, been 
classified at 5th class and are classified separately as 5th class in the 
proposed Classification, we find it necessary to ask the Board for con- 
sideration of this Supplement in connection with proposed Classification 
No. 17. 

As it was through an error or oversight on the part of our Committee 
that this matter was not discussed with the manufacturers of machinery, 
we assume there will be no objection on their part to the changes pro- 
posed as all that they asked for at the conference was that the present 
carload ratings be continued. 

I. am also enclosing a copy of letter to the King's Printer requesting 
publication of notice in the Canada Gazette as required under section 322 
of the Railway Act, 1919, in accordance with General Order of the Board, 
No. 271, September 10, 1919. 

25486—11 



162 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Copies of the proposed supplement with copies of request to the 
King's Printer, for publication in the Canada Gazette, have been mailed 
to all parties named in section 5 of the Board's General Order No. 271 
(Also to other parties to whom the Board have requested that such 
information be furnished) with request that their objections, if any, be 
filed with the Beard within the next thirty days. 

I have also sent a copy of this letter to Mr. S. B. Brown of the 
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Toronto, Mr. T. Marshall, Traffic 
Officer of the Board of Trade, Toronto, and Mr. J. K. Smith, Traffic 
Officer of the Board of Trade, Montreal, who were present at our con- 
ference with the machinery manufacturers when this matter was discussed, 
also to Mr. Geo. Carpenter of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, 
Winnipeg, Mr. J. H. Hanna, of Calgary, representing the province of 
Alberta, Mr. W. S. McClintock of Vancouver, representing the province 
of British Columbia, also Mr. Alex. McDonald, representing the pro- 
vince of Saskatchewan. 

In view of the conditions as stated herein, we trust the Board can 
consistently deal with the changes proposed in this Supplement at the 
time they hear further exceptions to proposed Classification No. 17." 

Subsequently there were submissions made to the Board in this regard in 
letters from the A. R. Williams Machinery Company, Limited, Toronto, dated 
October 8; the Canadian Laundry Machinery Co., Limited, Toronto, dated 
October 16; the Brown Boggs Company, Limited, Hamilton, dated October 21; 
and the Watrous Engine Works, Limited, Brantford, dated October 30. There 
is on file with the Board copies of replies made by Chairman Ransom direct to 
the firms named, in which he pointed out that no change was contemplated in 
the current ratings on this class of machinery, and the mixed carload arrange- 
ment will be the same as that which has prevailed in the past. Following Chair- 
man Ransom's letters of explanation to the firms in question no further sub- 
missions were made by them to the Board nor were any of the companies 
directly represented at the Ottawa sittings. At the Ottawa sittings, however, 
Mr. Brown, of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, stated he did not 
expect there would be anyone appearing before the Board on this complaint for 
the reason that the changes contained in proposed Supplement No. 1 to proposed 
Classification No. 17 met the complaint of the Dodge Manufacturing Company 
and that he understood explanations made to the other firms had met their 
objections. 

While there is no formal withdrawal on the record from any of the firms 
named, in view of their making no further submission subsequent to Chairman 
Ransom's letter of explanation to them, and not appearing although notified, 
at the hearing, and what was stated by Mr. Brown, the changes contained in 
proposed Supplement No. 1 to proposed Classification No. 17, may be approved 
without prejudice to the rights of any party to at any time make any further 
desired submissions in connection with what is here concerned. 

XXXVII 

Packing Cushions or Mats, Excelsior 

Page 205, Items 5 and 6 

Complaint of the Boxboard Products, Limited, London, Ont. 

(File 33365.21) 

The complainants were not represented at the hearing. In their written sub- 
mission, dated May 7, 1924, objection was taken to the proposed change in the 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 163 

classification of excelsior packing cushions or mats from 5th class C.L., minimum 
weight 20,000 pounds, as at present, to 3rd class C.L., minimum weight 12,000 
pounds, for the reason that this would prevent their mixture at 5th class ear- 
load: rating with egg-case or egg-carrier fillers. The complainants' products 
consist of egg-case fillers, egg-case flats and egg-case excelsior pads. Mr. 
Ransom, of the Canadian Freight Association, stated the Classification Com- 
mittee had considered this complaint and agreed to add the following item in 

Classification No. 17: — 

CJL. 
Egg case fillers and flats, K.D., packed in egg cases or in bundles, in 
mixed carloads with excelsior cushions or pads C.L., Min. Wt. 24,000 
lbs. subject to rule 7 5 

He Stated this would result in the complainant obtaining the same rating, and 
carload minimum weight, not only in Eastern Canada, but to points west of 
Port Arthur also, as he is receiving to-day, although the present mixture is con- 
fined to points east of Port Arthur. The provision for straight carloads is to 
remain as proposed, as to the manufacturers shipping in straight carloads it 
means a reduction. Mr. Ransom stated the foregoing arrangement was satis- 
factory to complainant. This has not been confirmed by any advice to the 
Board from complainant but it is assumed the matter may be considered dis- 
posed of and the proposed additional item as above quoted may be approved. 

XXXVIII 

Plumbers' Goods 

Page 214, Item 56, to page 217, Item 36, inclusive 

Application of Amherst Foundry Co.., Ltd., Amherst, N.S., for amendment to 
permit the shipment of mixed carloads to points west of Port Arthur, Ont. 

(File 19367.6). 

The rule of the Classification, both present and proposed, with respect to the 
shipment of different articles in mixed carloads, is that between shipping points 
east of Port Arthur and Armstrong, Ont., when a number of different articles for 
which carload ratings ere provided are shipped at one time by one consignor 
to one consignee and destination in a carload, they will be charged at the car- 
load rating applying to the highest classed article in the carload. Between 
points west of and including Port Arthur and Armstrong, Ont., also from points 
east thereof to Port Arthur and Armstrong and points west thereof, and vice 
versa, articles are not taken in mixed carloads at carload ratings unless classi- 
fied under distinctive headings, which are shown in the Classification in capital 
letters, as — " Agricultural Implements," " Groceries," " Hardware," etc. When 
a number of different articles under one distinctive heading, for which carload 
ratings are provided, are shipped at one time by one consignor to one consignee 
and destination in a carload, they are charged at carload rate applicable to the 
highest, classed article. 

What is here involved — the classification of Plumbers' Goods — is not the 
matter of the ratings themselves, nor the question of mixed carloads between 
points east of Port Arthur and Armstrong, Ont., but concerns mixed carloads 
from points east of Port Arthur and Armstrong to points west thereof, which 
are not permissible either under Classification No. 16 as at present in effect 
or as proposed in Classification No. 17, for the reason that the plumbers' goods 
are not shown in capital letters as one of the distinctive headings. 

Prior to the issuance of Canadian Freight Classification No. 16 there was 
a distinctive heading of plumbers' supplies provided for, which permitted mixed 
carload shipments from Eastern to Western Canada. However, when Classi- 
fication No. 16 was issued the plumpers' supplies list was done away with as a 

25486— Hi 



164 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

distinctive heading and the various articles of plumbers' goods have, since that 
dare, been shown under their alphabetical heading throughout the Classifica- 
tion, and could not be shipped in mixed carloads at carload rating. The manu- 
facturer, therefore, could not ship a mixed carload of, say, bath tubs, sinks, 
lavatories, laundry tubs, etc., but was required to make' a straight carload 
shipment of each of these articles in order to obtain the carload rating thereon. 
This change in classification was made as a result of an apparent agreement 
between representatives of certain manufacturers and the carriers and was sub- 
rnitted to the Board for approval in proposed Supplement No. 5 to Canadian 
Freight Classification No. 15. While this supplement was before the Board 
•pending approval, in 1913, there were no objections or representations filed 
with the Board against what w T as proposed and consequently the proposed Sup- 
plement was approved and the changes therein were incorporated in Canadian 
Freight Classification No. 16, which was then issued. 

The applicants who are now before the Board, however, were not, it appears, 
a party to the conference and agreement herein referred to. The Winnipeg Board 
.of Trade made no representations at that time, but subsequent to the issuance 
,of Classification No. 18 the J. H. Ashdown Hardware Company, Limited — a 
firm a member of the Winnipeg Board of Trade — wrote the Board under date of 
February 28, 1913, in substance as follows: — 

" There should be a carload rating of mixed plumbers' supplies of 
iron manufacture, enamelled, the same all being of one class and handled 
by plumbing jobbers and supply houses. He also expressed the opinion 
that bath tubs and laundry tubs, being exactly of same manufacture, 
should be permitted to be shipped in mixed quantities in same car with 
mixed grades of ironware, enamelled." 

Subsequently, under date of March 19, they wrote the Board and asked that 
their application be filed without further action by the Board. The change 
in Classification was at this time already in effect. 

Under date of April 12, 1924, the Amherst Foundry Company, Limited, 
wrote the Board as follows: — 

" We have been endeavouring for some time to get permission to 
ship cast-iron enamelled sanitary goods in mixed carloads to points west 
of Fort William, but up to the present we have not been able to get the 
consent of the railway to do so. The goods that we mention are all 
cast-iron enamelled, such as, bath tubs, laundry tubs, sinks, lavatories, 
etc., and are all the same class of goods. 

" We find that many of the dealers in the West who handle this 
class of goods are. not in a position to buy a carload of each different 
style of goods mentioned above, as it requires a considerable amount of 
capital and also takes a large place for storage. Many of these dealers 
would buy mixed carloads if they could be shipped in that way. You 
will understand that some of the very large jobbers do not want this 
privilege granted as under the present arrangements they are able to 
bring in carloads of the different articles separately, and the smaller 
jobber has to make his purchases from them. 

" We are very anxious to 'have this privilege and we do not see 
any reason why it should not be given to us. As we stated before these 
goods are all of one class and there is no more danger of damage in ship- 
ping them in mixed cars than in cars of all one class of article." 

Chairman Ransom, of the Canadian Freight Association, stated that so far 
as the carriers were concerned they were quite willing to either continue the 
present classification provision which calls for shipments in straight carloads 
of each article, or, on the other hand, to provide a distinctive heading for 






REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 165 

plumbers' goods enabling mixing as requested by the applicants. He stated the 
.matter was one with respect to which there were divided views and opinions 
.among the manufacturers and receivers. Mr. Ransom stated they had finally 
decided to leave the situation as at present in view of their inability to meet 
the views of all shipping interests, and let the Board decide the question. 

The matter was set down for hearing at points in Western Qanada from 
which representations had been made, viz., Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg, 
and also at Ottawa on December 3, along with other items in controversy with 
respect to proposed Classification No. 17. At the sittings in Edmonton June 
19, 192-1, no representations were made to the Board in this matter. At the 
sittings in Calgary July 7, at which representations were made re proposed 
Classification No. 17, a brief reference was made to this matter by Mr. Hanna, 
.Secretary of the Calgary Board of Trade, who stated that the provision as pro- 
posed in Classification No. 17, was satisfactory to them. At the sittings in 
Regina July 1.0, 1924, representations were made to the Board by Mr. Cook, 
representing the Saskatchewan Society of Sanitary Engineers, also the Regina 
.Society of Sanitary Engineers. Mr. Cook urged that the application of the 
Amherst Foundry Company be acceded to, so as to enable shipments of 
plumbers' goods in mixed carloads, stating this request was being made by him 
as representing the plumbers of the whole province. It was alleged that it was 
only the larger jobbers, or branch houses of eastern manufacturers, who are in 
a position to handle these goods in a straight carload of each article, the result 
being that the smaller jobbers or plumbers are forced to buy from certain large 
jobbers and it was suggested that this condition did not react to the benefit of 
the ultimate consumer. It was pointed out that the Classification already con- 
tains a great many distinctive headings, or trade lists, and in connection with 
the construction of buildings the . following distinctive headings which provide 
for mixed carload arrangement may be referred to: — 

Asbestos articles; 

Boiler parts, iron and steel; 

Brick; 

Building meta 1 work; 

Building woodwork; 

Electrical appliances and supplies; 

Furniture ; 

Glass; 

Hardware ; 

Mouldings ; 

Paints and varnishes, and paint and varnish materials; 

Store or office fittings. 

Mr. Cook urged strongly that it was discriminatory and unreasonable that 
there should be mixed lists such as above enumerated while plumbers' goods were 
denied a mixing privilege. He stated the list of plumbers' goods in the classifica- 
tion comprised some fifty-five articles and it was not reasonable to assume that 
these could always be shipped in solid carloads of each article. 

At the Winnipeg sittings July 14, 1924, submissions were made by Mr. 
Agnew, representing the Crane Company, and Mr. Maluish, of the J. H. Ash- 
down Hardware Company. Mr. Agnew objected to any change from the present 
classification provisions, desiring the continuance of the arrangement for straight 
carload shipments rather than mixing. He stated the chief of their objections 
was the liability to damage in transit when various articles of plumbers' goods 
were shipped in mixed carloads. However, no evidence was placed on the 
record showing comparative figures of claims for damage during the period that 
mixing was provided for, as compared with the straight carload shipments. He 
did mention that articles of plumbers' goods are most carefully crated and illus- 



166 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

crated this by describing at p. 5309 the method of crating a bath tub. The appli- 
cants contend there is no more danger of damage in shipping plumbers' goods in 
mixed cars than in cars containing all one class of article. There. is no state- 
ment on the record from the representatives of the carriers indicating that this 
question of liability to damage in mixed carloads v. straight carloads had any 
bearing with them on the question of classification provisions as to mixing. 
Carriers have not made any objection whatever on this point. Before much 
weight could be given by the Board to this contention of Mr. Agnew, therefore, 
it seems to me it would be necessary that there be something far more conclusive 
before the Board than the general statements which are now on the record 
unsupported by any figures upholding the contention. Aside from this feature 
of the matter, Mr. Agnew's submission simply dealt with an apparent defence 
of the method of handling the business through jobbers as at present. Mr. 
Maluish simply stated that he endorsed Mr. Agnew's argument. 

At the Ottawa sittings no one appeared in opposition to the application of 
the Amherst Foundry Company for the mixing privilege, although ample oppor- 
tunity was afforded interested manufacturers to make any desired representa- 
tions in regard to this application. 

I am of the opinion that the heading plumbers' goods, at item 56, page 214, 
and same heading where it appears to and including page 217, should be changed 
to a distinctive heading so as to make all plumbers' goods a trade list, and 
enable the shipment of mixed carloads in accordance with the provisions of 
Classification rule 10. 

XXXIX 

Rubber Floor Covering 
Page 227, Item 20 



Application of the Rubber Association of Canada, per Mr. A. B. Hannay, 

Manager and Secretary 

(file 33365.27) 



In a telegram dated May 8, 1924, the Rubber Association of Canada asked 
that rubber floor covering be given 3rd class rating in proposed Classification 
Xo. 17, the same as linoleum, which is, they stated, a competitive article; also 
requesting opportunity of appearing before the Board in support of said appli- 
cation. In a letter dated May 8, following the telegram, Mr. Hannay entered 
protest against ratings of 2nd class L.C.L. and 4th class C.L. shown in proposed 
Classification No. 17 on rubber mats, matting and floor 'Covering, and applied 
for ratings of 3rd class L.C.L., and 5th class C.L. ; also stating he desired the 
opportunity of appearing before the Board in support of said application " for 
the reason that these articles are in competition with linoleum and oilcloth floor 
covering, which have 3rd and 5th class ratings". 

At present in Classification No. 16 linoleum and floor oilcloth are provided 
with L.C.L. ratings of 1st class when 13 feet long and over, and 3rd class under 
13 feet long; the carload rating in both shipping conditions is 5th class. The 
rubber floor covering is handled as rubber matting at ratings of 2nd class L.C.L. 
and 4th class C.L. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 167 

In proposed Classification No. 17 provision is made for linoleum and floor 
oilcloth, as well as wood (parquet flooring) and cork carpets or carpeting, at 
ratings of 3rd class L.C.L. and 5th class C.L. Carpets or carpeting N.O.I.B.N. 
(not otherwise indexed by name) are provided for at ratings of 1st class L.C.L. 
and 3rd class C.L. Mats or matting made of fibre, grass or straw are provided 
with ratings of 1st class L.C.L. and 4th class C.L. Rubber mats, matting and 
floor covering are provided with ratings of 2nd class L.C.L. and 4th class C.L. 

At the Ottawa sittings December 4 Mr. Hannay modified his application 
by withdrawing request for reduction in the ratings proposed on rubber mats 
and matting, thus confining his application to the rubber floor covering. He 
stated (p. 9735) :— 

" Our whole claim for these rates is based on competition with 
linoleum." 

It will be noted that the whole issue, as above set out, and as' also developed 
in the record, is based solely on the ground that rubber floor covering is entitled 
to the same ratings as linoleum for the reason that these articles compete with 
each other. 

The reasons advanced in support of the application were that the rubber 
floor covering is competitive with linoleum, similar in appearance, comparative 
in price, heavier in weight, and made use of in a similar way throughout the 
country as linoleum. It is set out by Mr. Hannay that rubber floor covering is 
a comparatively new article on the market, but is obtaining a substantial foot- 
ing, being made use of in such places as hospitals, church aisles, steamships, 
moving picture theatres, Y.M.C.A. buildings, and government and office build- 
ings generally, where linoleum would otherwise have been used. 

The conditions of marketing in respect to these two articles are at the 
present time dissimilar, the rubber floor covering is being sold direct to the 
contractor, while the linoleum is distributed generally through merchants. Up to 
the present time there has been practically no domestic use of the rubber flooring 
in residences; in fact, there is no real competition between linoleum and rubber 
floor covering for domestic use, and while merchants stock linoleum they do not 
carry rubber floor covering. 

From the standpoint of values and weights, taking either the oilcloth or 
linoleum on the one hand and the rubber floor covering on the other, there is a 
rather wide range. A statement made up by the Dominion Oilcloth & Linoleum 
Company, of Montreal, and filed by Qhairman Ransom, of the Canadian Freight 
Association, shows floor oilcloth at an average value of 33^ cents per square 
yard and a weight of 2.8 pounds per square yard. Their figures as to linoleum, 
based on average weights and values, show a range in weight from 3| pounds 
per square yard for the lowest grade of linoleum, to 14J pounds per square yard 
for their " battleship " linoleum, and in value from 54^ cents to $1.80 per square 
yard, respectively. According to the record, the rubber floor covering shows a 
range in value per square yard from $2.50 to $7 and in weight per square yard 
from 12 to 24 pounds. With regard to these commodities (and the same remarks 
would be applicable to many other items throughout the Classification), with 
such a range in weights and values obviously it is difficult to make a single 
computation with regard to the linoleum that would not be subject to contro- 
versy, and the same with the rubber floor covering. Mr. Hannay filed an 
exhibit giving a comparison in price and weight as between rubber floor covering 
and linoleum of similar thickness, as follows: — 



168 



RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 



VALUE PER POUND OF RUBBER FLOOR COVERING AND LINOLEUM OF SIMILAR 

THICKNESS 

Rubber floor covering 



Thickness 



List price 



Net Price 



Pounds per 
Square 
Yard 



Value per 
Pounds 



1/8'. 
3/16' 
1/4'.. 



Square yard 

$2.50 less 
10%-10% 

$3.00 less 
10%— 10% 

$4.00 less 
10%-10% 



Square Yd. 
$2,025 

$2.43 

$3.24 



16|c 
13|c 
13^c 



Linoleum 



1/8". 
3/16" 

1/4". 



$1.30 less 
10— 7£— 2* 

$1.65 less 
10— 7§— 2§ 

$2.05 less 
10— 7|— 2\ 




15c 
16c 
14fc 



With respect to the -J-inch linoleum there appears to be an error in the above 
figures and the weight per square yard which reads 7 pounds should be 5| pounds, 
and the value per pound which reads 15 cents should read 18| cents. 

Rubber floor covering and linoleum are both sold based on the price per 
square yard, so that it will therefore be observed that the cost of laying a floor 
with the rubber floor covering is not much short of being twice as much as if 
laid with linoleum of the same thickness. Expressed in value per pound, the 
linoleum figures somewhat higher, although if expressed in value per cubic foot 
the rubber floor covering would be almost double that of the linoleum. As illus- 
trative of the difference between the two floor coverings, taking ^-inch thickness, 
the cost of flooring a building of 3,000 square yards with rubber floor covering 
at $3.24 per square yard would be $9,720. One-quarter inch linoleum at $1.66 
per square yard would, for the same job, cost $4,980, so that the cost of the 
rubber flooring would be $4,740 more than linoleum. In other words, for an 
additional $240 6,000 square yards of ^-inch linoleum would cost the same as 
3,000 square yards of the rubber floor covering. If the rubber floor covering 
were moving from Montreal to Winnipeg for flooring a building of 3,000 square 
yards, the difference in freight cost as between the proposed rating and that 
applied for would be $176.40, which would be less than 4 per cent of the $4,740 
difference in price cost between these two kinds of floor covering. 

The Dominion Oilcloth and Linoleum Company were represented at the 
sittings by Mr. Sheppard, who stated that the linoleum manufacturer does not 
consider the rubber floor covering in any way competitive. He contended that 
equality in freight rates would not affect the alleged competition between the 
two articles; further, that he was not interested in the classification ratings on 
rubber floor covering and even if they were lower than provided for linoleum 
it would not in any way affect the linoleum manufacturer. Mr. Sheppard stated 
his object in appearing before the Board was to request that no change be made 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 169 

in the proposed provision for linoleum which is substantially a continuance of the 
ratings as they have existed in the past. He did not want the linoleum ratings 
raised to those proposed for rubber floor covering, not by reason of competition 
between these two articles, but on account of very severe -competition which 
the Canadian linoleum manufacturer has to meet in connection with importa- 
tions of this article from England. It is represented that there are very large 
factories with large capital and low labour costs in England, and that the 
English manufacturer makes a freight allowance to the Canadian buyer, which 
is nearly sufficient to absorb completely the freight charges, which places the 
Canadian manufacturer at a tremendous disadvantage, consequently the Cana- 
dian manufacturer would be unable to stand any increase in the ratings that 
have heretofore existed on linoleum and as now proposed. 

The conclusions which I think are fairly reached on the record are that 
as to household or domestic use at the present time competition between rubber 
floor covering and linoleum is practically non-existent. With regard to the 
use of these articles in offices, public buildings, etc., the rubber floor covering 
being almost twice as valuable per square yard (whidh is the unit of sale) as 
linoleum, if the contractor is not stinted or held down as to price the rubber 
floor covering may be used, but where it is necessary to effect a saving in cost 
linoleum would probably be used. 

The applicants chose to base their application solely on alleged competi- 
tion with linoleum, and that is as far as the case was developed. On that issue 
they have not, in my opinion, shown that there is sufficient actual competition 
to create a case of unjust discrimination by reason of a difference in classifica- 
tion ratings; have not proven that the readjustment of classification sought 
would have any appreciable effect on the alleged competition; therefore, on 
the issue as presented, the Board would not be justified in directing the classifi- 
cation revision applied for, and the application fails. 

XL 

Carload Rating on Empty Tin Cans, N.O.I.B.N. 

Page 234, Items 2, 4 and 6 

Complaint of the Dominion Canners, Ltd., Hamilton, Ont., and the Quality 
C ' anners of Canada, Ltd., Windsor, Ont. (file 33365.6) 

In proposed Classification No. 17 the provision for empty tin cans, butter 
or lard; oil; oil; jacketed; also empty tin cans, N.O.I.B.N. (not otherwise indexed 
by name), when shipped loose in carloads is shown at 5th class, minimum 
carload weight 17,000 pounds, while at the present time in Classification No. 16 
the provision for these -cans in the same snipping condition is 6th class, mini- 
mum carload weigjht 18,000 pounds. When these cans are shipped in boxes 
in carloads the provision therefor both at present and in proposed Classification 
No. 17 is 5th class. 

The complainants; here are the Dominion Canners, Limited, of Hamilton, 
and the Quality Canners of Canada, Limited, of Windsor, Ont., who object to 
the proposed provision for loose cans, N.O.I.B.N., in carloads, covered by 
Items 2, 4 and 6, page 234. There were also complaints submitted to the Board 
by the Associated Boards of Trade of British Columbia, the Broder Canning 
Company, of New Westminster, B.C., the McDonald Jam Company, Van- 
couver, and Mr. R. O'Leary, of Richibucto, N.B. By letter of June 21, 1924, 
the Associated Boards of Trade of British Columbia withdrew their complaint, 



170 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

and at the hearing Mr. Ransom, of the Canadian Freight Association, made 
the statement that they had, in conference with the canning companies of 
British Columbia, satisfactorily adjusted their complaints. 

Mr. Ransom also stated that the complaint of Mr. R. O'Leary, of Richi- 
bucto, > T .B., which related to empty tin cans used in lobster canning, was 
being taken care of to the satisfaction of the complainant by the establishment 
of commodity rates on basis of 6th class, minimum carload weight 20,000 
pounds. These lobster cans, it is stated, load to 21,000 or 22,000 pounds per 
ear. which is an appreciably heavier loading than is possible in the case of the 
cans used by canners of fruits and vegetables. 

This leaves only the complaints of the Dominion Canners and the Quality 
Canners of Canada to be considered. Mr. Ransom stated that their Classifica- 
tion Committee had met the can manufacturers of Canada and had satisfied 
everyone except the two complainants just named. The justification advanced 
by Mr. Ransom for the revision in the carload rating on the loose cans was 
based on the following grounds: — 

1. Originally loose cans were rated at 6th class in carloads so as to exclude 
them from the classes of freight that would require to be handled by the car- 
riers, as they did not desire to handle loose cans. In the revision of the classi- 
fication this situation is altered, as Rule 13, section 3, stipulates that, unless 
otherwise provided owners are required to load into or on cars and to unload 
from cars all freight carried at carload ratings. Heretofore rule 12 of Classifi- 
cation No. 16 has only stipulated that freight in 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th 
classes must be loaded and unloaded by owners. 

2. The raw material from which the cans are made is classified 5th class 
in carloads, with minimum carload weight of 36,000 pounds, and it is a pretty 
well recognized principle of classification that the manufactured article should 
not be rated lower than the raw material from which it is made. 

3. The proposed revision makes the same carload rating on tin cans 
whether carried loose in bulk, or in boxes, and to provide for them in bulk at 
a lower rating than When shipped in boxes would be a discrimination against 
the shipping condition last named, and this discrimination could not consist- 
ently be removed by reduction of the rating on cans in boxes to 6th class as 
this would, in turn, to be logical or consistent, suggest a similar reduction in 
the ratings that have long existed, and held to be reasonable, on many other 
manufactured articles of tinware. This was practically the only item in the 
classification Where the rating was higher for a shipment in a good container 
(a box) than charged for the same article shipped loose in the car. 

4. The carriers found that where it is necessary to unload a portion of the 
contents of a car to repair the car, or where it became necessary to transfer the 
entire contents, it is practically impossible to remove or transfer loose cans 
without causing damage, and as these cans are shipped open at one end if they 
become dented to a very slight extent on the rim they cannot be properly sealed 
on the can-sealing machine and therefore become a total loss which the carrier 
would be obliged to assume. Cans shipped in Iboxes would not incur the same 
risk of damage in transfer or handling in transit. 

Mr. Ransom filed the following exhibit showing what would be involved in 
the way of difference in charges per car on representative shipments from Niagara 
Falls, Ont,, which is a can manufacturing point, and in connection therewith 
stated that while it included two western Canadian points his information was 
that no cans were being shipped from eastern Canadian territory to points in 
western Canada. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 
TIN CANS, C.L., FROM NIAGARA FALLS, ONT. 



171 



To 



Per car earnings 



5th class 

min. wt. 

17,000 lbs. 



6th class 
min. wt. 
18,000 lbs. 



Difference 



Windsor, Ont 

London, Ont 

Woodstock, Ont 

Hamilton, Ont 

St. Catharines, Ont 

Toronto, Ont 

Peterboro, Ont 

Montreal, Que 

Moncton, N.B 

St. John, N.B 

Port Arthur, Ont... 
Winnipeg, Man 



$58 65 

49 30 

46 75 

33 15 

20 40 

42 50 

58 65 

77 35 

104 55 

104 55 

134 30 

193 80 



$54 90 

45 00 

45 00 

32 40 

20 70 

43 20 

54 90 

74 70 

104 40 

104 40 

119 70 

181 80 



$3 75 
4 30 

1 75 
75 
30 
70 

3 75 

2 65 
15 
15 

15 60 
12 00 



Omitting Port Arthur and Winnipeg the average increase per car is $1.82. 

The Quality Canners of Canada were not represented at the hearing, Mr. 
Caldwell, representing the Dominion Canners, Limited, submitted a prepared 
statement outlining his objections to the revision in so far as relates to items 
2, 4 and 6 on page 234, empty cans, N.O. I.B.N. There is no objection on the 
record with regard to the other cans already described herein, which are similarly 
rated. 

Mr. Caldwell referred to the present rating as having been prescribed by 
the Board by its Order No. 13850 of June 2, 1911. A reference to the record in 
that case shows that at that time the proposition of the carriers was to provide 
a carload rating of 4th class, minimum 16,000 pounds, on the loose cans, which 
is a rating one class higher than is now proposed. The proposal at that time 
also specifically provided that shipments were to be loaded by shipper and 
unloaded by (consignee. In other words, while the cans were to be transferred 
from a non-handled carload class to one of the classes based on handling by the 
carriers, they were still to be non-handled by carriers, by the qualification 
referred to. At that time this involved an anomaly in classification-making by 
providing for non-handling in connection with traffic in one of the handling 
classes, and this feature was given due weight in the decision of the Board then 
arrived at. By reason of the change in the provision of this rule, as already 
herein referred to, the conditions are now substantially different from those then 
before the Board. At that time the Board held that the rating of 5th class C.L. 
for the crated or boxed cans was proper, being the same as provided for other 
tinware. 

Mr. Caldwell stated that the principal sized cans they handle are 2's, which 
average approximately 16,400 pounds per standard car; 2^'s, averaging 14,400 
pounds; and 10's averaging 9,835 pounds. The average loading of the three types 
of cans would be around 14,000 pounds, so that, generally speaking, the minimum 
carload weight proposed, even though it is a reduction from the present minimum 
carload weight, is in excess of the average loading. This, it may be noted, is not 
an unusual, but, on the other hand, a rather general condition with regard to 
minimum carload weights provided in the Classification for numerous light and 
bulky 'commodities, the minimum weight, in conjunction with the rating, being 
considered together in the fixation of what is felt to be a reasonable classification 
provision therefor. 

On the question of the propriety and reasonableness of the proposed provi- 
sion for these loose cans in carloads from the standpoint of the classification 
elements that are given weight in such cases, no evidence whatever was adduced 
by Mr. Caldwell, or in the written submission of the Quality Canners of Canada. 



172 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

Having analyzed the provisions generally for various articles of sheet metal 
ware, I am of the opinion that the provision for 5th class rating on the loose 
cans in carloads, thus putting them on the same footing as the cans in boxes; 
on the same basis as other cans that are not covered by the objection of the 
complainants here; and on a parity with the ratings on other articles of sheet 
metal ware that from a classification standpoint are analogous, is a reasonable 
provision and should be approved. 

XLI 

Caps, Bottles — Iron, Steel or Tin and Cork, Paper or Pulpboard Combined. 

Page 234, Items 12 and 13 
Complaint of The Crown Cork and Seal Company, Toronto 
(file 33365.2) 

These are now classed L.C.L. 2, C.L. 5; but they are not included in any 
trade list or distinctive heading and, consequently, cannot be shipped in mixed 
carloads from east of Port Arthur to points west thereof. 

It is now proposed that provision be made for these articles under the dis- 
tinctive heading of sheet metal ware, wmich will permit mixing in the territory 
above referred to. 

Complainants say they are large manufacturers of these bottle caps; at the 
same time, they do not manufacture any other articles of sheet metalware, and 
not being able to mix in the territory in question they must, when quantities 
Jess than carlot are wanted, ship on less than carlot rating. They contend that 
what is proposed would put them at a disadvantage as compared with com- 
petitors who, in addition, manufacture sheet metalware. 

Complainants stated that they ship mostly in less than carload quantities 
to the West; they also ship in carloads to the Winnipeg Branch, although prac- 
tically 50 per cent of the shipments to this branch are also less than carloads. 
They make occasional carload shipments to points west of Winnipeg. 

The matter of the proposed arrangement was emphasized by the Canadian 
Crown Cork Company, Montreal; the Dominion Crown Cork Company, 
Toronto; and the McDonald Manufacturing Company; and Sheet Metal Pro- 
ducts, Toronto. All of these were interested in the mixing provision and 
emphasized its advantage. 

The carriers stated that it was a matter of indifference to them what arrange- 
ment was adopted; it was a matter of divergent trade interest and it was, there- 
fore, left to the Board to deal w T ith. 

In dealing with this matter, and the following decisions of the Board, the 
Board should give such consideration as is proper to the effect that the Classifi- 
cation provision has upon the business of the manufacturers. Giving effect to 
complainants' application, all manufacturers will be on an equality, i.e., if they 
ship in less than carload quantities the L.C.L. rate will apply and if they ship in 
carloads, the carload rating governs. The proposed classification provision would 
continue this situation with respect to complainants, but the other companies, 
by reason of their ability to ship in mixed carloads with sheet metalware, would 
be able to obtain the carload rating on L.C.L. quantities to the detriment of 
complainants who do not manufacture any other articles. In the Judgment of 
the Board in the application of H. E. Ledoux Company, Winnipeg, the Board 
stated: — 

" Consideration must be given to the effect the granting of such a 
request would have upon the business of other manufacturers. Other 
manufacturers — who do not carry on their business in the same way — 
would be discriminated against by the preference which such a rating 
would give the applicants." — 12 C.R.C. 3. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 173 

Again, in the matter of Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, Limited, 
Montreal, et al, re classification of rubber goods, the question involved was the 
desire of applicants to have a carload rating provided in the Canadian Classifi- 
cation on rubber boots, shoes and socks, so that they would be able to mix 
these articles with other rubber goods in carload shipments. In its judgment the 
Board stated: — 

" The question, therefore, really is, whether the applicants should 
have this mixing privilege or not. Rubber boots and shoes enter into 
competition with leather and felt boots and shoes in all parts of the 
country. At present all manufacturers of boots and shoes, of whatever 
material, are on equal terms in their competitive markets so far as rail- 
way rates are concerned. Under the commodity tariffs referred to they 
can all ship their products in carload lots, 3rd class. The manufacturers 
of leather or felt boots and shoes have not the privilege of mixing those 
products with other leather or felt articles, It might well be said that an 
undue preference would be given the applicants if their application was 
granted, and they would thus be enabled to get their rubber boots and 
shoes into a competitive market with leather boots and shoes at a car- 
load rating, although the carload of rubber goods contained only a small 
shipment of rubber boots and shoes." — Board's Printed Judgments and 
Orders, Vol. VIII, p. 36. 

It may also be pointed out that the position taken by the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission has been along the same lines. For example, in the case of 
Paper Mills Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad et al, 12 I.C.C. ^38, there was 
decided the question of mixed carload ratings for paper bags and wrapping paper. 
The digest of the case is that complainants at Baltimore, Md., and two con- 
cerns at Atlanta, Ga., were the only parties doing business in Southern Classifi- 
cation territory who shipped both paper bags and wrapping paper. The defen- 
dant railroad companies refused to apply carload rates to mixed carloads of paper 
bags and wrapping paper shipped to points in Southern Classification territory, 
although with respect to shipments within the State of Georgia the Railway 
Commission of that State required defendants to make such application. This 
operated to place dealers outside Georgia at a disadvantage. While an order 
requiring carload rates on mixed carloads of the articles in question would have 
benefited complainants, many others who handled only one of such articles 
would have been correspondingly injured, since, while they would still have to 
pay L.C.L. rates on L.C.L. shipments, their competitors who dealt in both articles 
would be enabled by shipping in mixed carloads to obtain carload rates on L.C.L. 
shipments. It was held by the Interstate Commerce Commission that the refusal 
to apply carload rating on mixed carloads of paper bags and wrapping paper 
would not subject complainants to undue preference or disadvantage. 

In my opinion, the provision for these bottle caps should be eliminated 
from the sheet metal ware list on page 234 of proposed Classification No. 17 
and transferred to page 68 under their alphabetical heading. This involves the 
transfer of these articles only, and not the other articles already referred to, 
viz., covers or tops of can bottoms. 

XLII 

There is still outstanding to be dealt with note 2 on page 211, under the 
heading of petroleum and petroleum products, reading as follows: — 

Note 2. — Petroleum or. petroleum products, other than fuel oil or 
road oil, in tank cars, will be accepted for transportation only when con- 
signed to parties accepting delivery on private sidings, or when con- 



174 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

med to parties accepting delivery from railroad sidings where facilities 
exisr for piping the oil from tank cars to permanent storage tanks. 

Special investigation has been made in regard to this in connection with 
the conditions in various sections of the country, and 'it is reserved to be dealt 
with under a separate ruling. 

• missioner Oliver: 

MIXING RULE 

The mixing rule limits the fights of shippers regarding the classes of goods 
that may be included in a carload at a certain rate. 

The question regarding it arises out of the fact that it is an accepted and 
necessary condition of railway operation that the value of the commodity shall 
be considered as well as its weight and volume in fixing the charges for its 
haulage. 

While the actual haulage cost of a car of coal and of groceries of the same 
weight is approximately the same, in railroad practice the charges for haulage 
of each widely differ. 

These difference? in the charges for rendering to shippers identically the 
same service at the same cost to the railways constitute what is called the 
Freight Classification. 

The justification for the difference in haulage charges on different commo- 
dities, as defined in the Freight Classification, is because in practice it is found 
chat for the railway to earn the gross revenue that will enable it to pay operating 
costs, and interest on the investment, it is necessary that there shall be differ- 
ences in rates, bearing some proportion to the differences in the respective values 
of the several commodities at point of delivery. The reason of this is that high 
rates on a commodity of low value would prevent its movement, so that, — 

First, it would not give any revenue to the railway; and, 

Second, its failure to be moved to where it would be of use would hamper 
industry and trade to the detriment of business generally and therefore to the 
detriment of the railway. On the other hand, unless comparatively high rates 
were charged on some commodities, the railway would not earn operating 
expenses and interest on investment, and therefore, could not continue to render 
neccs-ary service. 

The classified rates are numbered from one to ten. The freight Classifica- 
tion under consideration places all commodities in one or other of the several 
classes to which these ten rates apply. For instance, in car lots only, dry goods 
and boots and shoes are first class; , butter is third class; cheese is fourth class; 
many but not all lines of groceries and hardware are fifth class; agricultural 
implements are sixth class; asphalt is seventh class; grain and grain products 
eighth class; live stock, ninth class; lumber and coal, salt, etc., tenth class; all 
soods in less than car lots are placed in classes one, two or three; articles in 
seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth classes are to a larger extent hauled at special 
commodity rates, lower than the class rates. 

The rule regarding mixing has no application, except as to car lots. 

In the case of goods shipped from points east of Fort William to points 
west of Tort William, the present Freight Classification makes arbitrary pro- 
vision for grouping within the respective classes certain commodities of similar 
character, with the purpose that articles comprised in one group shall not form 
part of a carload made up of articles of another group, although both commo- 
dities are of the same class and are entitled to the same haulage rate. 

This provision, which refuses to shippers the class rate to which all the 
goods in the car are entitled, because they belong to different groups, does not 
apply as between points in Eastern Canada or in the United States. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 175 

Application was made to the Board on behalf of the retail merchants of 
the prairie provinces to have the same rule as to mixed carloads which applies 
in the east,, also apply in the west. This was opposed by wholesalers in the 
West, who contended that their business as wholesalers had been established 
and built up under the conditions hitherto existing which prohibited the mixing 
of carloads of goods of different groups of the same class. 

It would appear to me that the question properly at issue is not the wishes 
or interests of either the western retailers or western wholesalers, but of the 
consuming public of the west. I am further of the opinion that the less restric- 
tion there is on the transfer of goods between the manufacturer or importer and 
the consumer, the better it is for all parties concerned, and for the country at 
large. 

The right of eastern manufacturers and wholesalers to ship to western 
retailers at any certain class rate any goods of that class in a single carload, 
seems to me to be inherent to the principle of classification. No reason has 
been brought out, sufficient in my mind to lead to the conclusion that what is 
right or expedient in this regard throughout eastern Canada and the western 
States would be wrong or inexpedient in the case of western Canada. 

The fact that a condition of discrimination against the eastern wholesaler 
and western retailer now exists is not, to my mind, a sufficient reason for its 
continuance. I am therefore of opinion that mixing of all goods of the same 
class should be permitted in making up carloads for distribution at western 
points. 

rule 7 

In the case of rule 7, I agree with the opinions of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner, as set forth at the foot of page 24 of his draft judgment. 

RULE 13 

I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief Commissioner in regard 
to this rule, as set forth in his draft judgment (pp. 25-26) . 

RULE 15 

I agree with the conclusions reached by the Assistant Chief Commissioner 
in regard to this rule, as set forth in his draft judgment (pp. 26-27). 

BAGS AND BAGGING 

Page 50, Items 30 and 40: I agree with the conclusions reached by the 
Assistant Chief Commissioner in regard to this complaint (pp. 28, draft judg- 
ment) . 

CARLOAD RATINGS ON BASKETS 

Page 52, Items 5-7-16-18: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner in regard to these items (see pp. 29 to 31 inclusive, draft 
judgment). 

STATIONERY AND SCHOOL BOOKS 

In mixed Carloads, page 58, Item 3: I agree with the conclusions of the 
Assistant Chief Commissioner in regard to these items (pp. 31 and 32, draft 
judgment). 

BUTTER BOXES. CARLOAD RATING 

Page 59, Item 12: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner in regard to this Item (pp. 33 to 36 inclusive, draft judgment). 

BOXES: SHIRTWAIST OR SKIRT 

Page 60, Item 32: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner in regard to this item (pp. 36 to 39 inclusive, draft judgment). 



176 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

BROOM CORN, CARLOAD RATING 

Page 61, Item 52: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner with regard to this item (pp. 39 to 40 inclusive, draft judgment). 

BUTTER, CARLOAD RATING 

Page 6Q Item 48: I agree with the conclusions reached by the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner, in regard to this Item (pp. 41 to 46 inclusive, draft 
judgment). 

VINEGAR BARRELS, EMPTY RETURNED 

Page 69, Item 10: I agree with the conclusions reached by the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner with regard to this Item (pp. 46 to 48 inclusive, draft 
judgment). 

EMPTY BISCUIT TINS AND WOODEN CASES RETURNED 

Page 69, Items 18-20-30-and 32: I agree with the conclusions of the Assist- 
ant Chief Commissioner with regard to this Item (pp. 48 to 49 inclusive, draft 
judgment). 

CARBIDE OF CALCIUM 

Page 80, Item 46: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief Com- 
missioner in regard to this Item (pp. 49 to 50 inclusive, draft judgment). 

ELECTRIC STOVES 

* 

Electric Stoves, Cooking, N.O.I.B.N. Page 107, Item 12. (pp. 51 to 57, 
draft judgment, Assistant Chief Commissioner). 

Complaint of Canadian Stove Founders, et al 
file 33365.33 

Thie is the protest of Canadian stove manufacturers against the removal 
of electric stoves, etc., in car lots from fifth to fourth class. 

Hitherto electric stoves were included under the group heading, "Stoves, 
ranges, heaters, etc.," and could be included in mixed carloads at fifth class rate. 
The new classification specifically excludes them from the group which includes 
stoves, ranges, etc., and places them in the fourth class. This has the double effect 
of directly increasing the freight charge on electric stoves from the fifth to the 
fourth class rate; but besides, by that change is taken away the privilege of 
shipping in mixed carloads of stoves which formerly prevailed. 

The weight of stoves, ranges, etc., makes any increase in freight charges a 
serious matter on the long haul from Eastern to Western Canada. As stoves 
are a basic necessity, it is important that the cost to the consumer should not be 
unduly increased. 

Generally speaking, electric appliances take a higher classification than such 
articles as stoves. In revising the rate classification the railway companies 
naturally looked for fair opportunity to secure increased earnings. " An electric 
stove is an electric appliance, therefore why not classify it as such?" 

But, on the other hand, to the householder a stove is only a stove, and there- 
fore should not be classed as anything else. Wood, coal, gas and oil stoves all 
take the same classification, though they differ widely in many respects. Then, 
why should not the electric stove take the same classification, when it only exists 
to serve the same purpose? 

The claim for a higher rating on electric than on coal stoves is based to some 
extent on their higher selling price. One estimate was that they cost 40 per cent 
more than coal stoves of like capacity. Usually the higher priced article pays 
the higher freight rate. But in this case the weight of the electric stove is greater 
than that of the coal stove in proportion to its bulk. To that extent it is a 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 177 

/better article for railroad carriage than a coal stove, and I believe that fact is 
•entitled to consideration in the fixing of the rate. As the electric stove weighs 
more than the coal stove, the railway earns more on each electric stove that it 
carries than on each coal stove, at the same rate of freight. 

The western householder pays the greater first cost of the electric stove, 
and the greater cost of its haul westward at the coal stove rate, because of its 
greater weight. To add on to his costs a higher rail rate must so increase the 
gross costs as to materially restrict the development of the trade to the detri- 
ment of both the manufacturer and the railroad. 

For these reasons I am of opinion that electric stoves should be restored 
to the rate and group which includes wood, coal, gas, oil and other stoves. 

salt; epsom salts: chloride of lime, etc. 

Mixing Privileges, and Carload Minimum weights on: Pages 130-144 
Grocery List: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief Commissioner 
with regard to this item, as set forth in his draft judgment (pp. 58 to 60 
inclusive) . 

STOVE BLACKING 

Shoe Dressing or Blacking; and Stove Polish; Page 133, Items 22-24 and 
26, and Page 140, Item, 11: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item, as set forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 
60 to 66 inclusive) . 

DRIED FRUITS 

Dried Fruits: Page 135, Items 20 and 22; Page 136, Items 1 and 2: I 
agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief Commissioner in regard to 
these items, as set forth in his draft judgment (pp. 66 to 68 inclusive). 

CHEWING GUM 

Page 136, Item 14: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this item, as set forth in his draft judgment (pp. 
68 to 71 inclusive). 

FRUIT JAR RINGS 

Page 137 ; Item 9: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this item as set forth in his draft judgment (pp. 

72 to 73 inclusive). 

MACARONI, ETC. 

Page 137; Item 20: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item as set forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 

73 to 77 inclusive). 

L.C.L. RATINGS ON SALT, COMMON 

Page 140; Item 1.9: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item as set forth in the Draft Judgment (pp. 
77 to 79 inclusive). 

TOBACCO, PLUG OR TWIST 

Page 143; Item 26: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item, as set forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 
79 to 81 inclusive). 

ASPHALT SHINGLES AND ROOFING 

Page I46; Item 9; Page 155; Item 37: I agree with the conclusions of the 
Assistant Chief Commissioner in regard to these Items, as set forth in his Draft 
Judgment (pp. 82 to 85 inclusive). 

25486—12 



178 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

BARBED WIRE, MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHT ON 

Page 160; Item 22: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item, as set forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 
85 to 86 inclusive). 

FOREIGN WINES 

Page 17 %; Item 30: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item as set forth in his Draft Judgment (p. 87). 

LUMBER, MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHT ON 

Page 178; Items 2 and 4: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner in regard to these Items, as set forth in his Draft Judg- 
ment (pp. 87 to 88 inclusive). 

MACHINERY AND MACHINES 

Page 178 — Note 3: I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to this Item, as set forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 
89 to 92 inclusive). 

PACKING CUSHIONS OR MATS! EXCELSIOR 

Page 205, Items 5 and 6: I agj-ee with the conclusions of the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner in regard to these items, as set forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 92 
to 93 inclusive). 

plumbers' goods 

Page 214, Item 56, to Page 217, Item 36, inclusive: I agree with the con- 
clusions of the Assistant Chief Commissioner in regard to these Items, as set 
forth in his Draft Judgment (pp. 93 to 98 inclusive). 

RUBBER FLOOR COVERING 

Rubber Floor Covering, Page 227, Item 20: Application of the Rubber 
Association of Canada, to have rubber flooring given the same classification and 
rating as linoleum (file 33365.27).^- 
At present the ratings are: — 
Car lots: 

Linoleum — 5th class. 
Rubber flooring — 4th class. 

Less than car lots: 

Linoleum — 3rd class. 
Rubber flooring — 2nd class. 

The purposes for which linoleum and rubber flooring are used are the same, 
namely the covering of floors which carry considerable wear. 

The cost per pound of the rubber flooring averages somewhat less than that 
of the linoleum and the weight per square yard of surface covered is nearly 
double as great. As classified at present the heavier commodity, although made 
of cheaper material, is placed in the higher class, and therefore pays a higher 
freight rate than the competing article. A square yard of rubber flooring of a 
certain thickness will cost more than a square yard of the same thickness of 
linoleum, because the material of which it is 'Composed is so much heavier, but 
that would appear to me to be a reason why it should be placed in a lower rather 
than a higher class. 

Articles made of rubber usually carry a high classification. That may be 
why a higher rate of freight has been imposed upon rubber flooring than on 
linoleum, but the classification usually applied to goods in whose making rubber 
is largely used does not properly apply to rubber flooring for the reason that 






REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 179 

the raw material used in its composition is not commercial rubber such as is 
used in rubber goods which have the higher classification. Rubber flooring has 
been evolved as a means of utilizing the waste rubber that accrues from year to 
year because articles made of commercial rubber have become worn out and 
useless. Rubber once used cannot be used again in making any of the articles 
usually classified as rubber goods. 

The useful employment of an otherwise waste material would seem to me 
to be a fair argument for giving the product a low freight classification. In 
fact it would appear to me that to place rubber flooring in the 2nd and 4th classes, 
when linoleum is in the 3rd and 5th, is an evidently unjust discrimination. 

Regarding the suggestion which I understand to be made that linoleum and 
rubber flooring are not competitive because they reach the ultimate user through 
different selling methods, and generally speaking, are used under somewhat 
different conditions, I desire to say that I cannot agree that articles intended to 
serve like purposes are not essentially competitive. It is possible, I admit, that 
selling arrangements 'may lessen or possibly exclude actual competition; also 
that price differences may be such as to drive different commodities intended to 
serve like purposes into the hands of different classes of users, but I am com- 
pelled to maintain that where there is a large proportion of instances in which 
either article will serve the same purpose, as in the case of rubber flooring and 
linoleum, they are essentially competitive, and should be treated as such in 
freight classification, in so far as the feature of competition is entitled to be 
considered in that connection. 

Both rubber flooring and linoleum are heavy in proportion to their value; 
therefore freight charges form an important part of the cost to the ultimate user. 
The difference in freight classification against rubber flooring, as compared with 
linoleum has the effect of unduly increasing its cost to the user and therefore 
restricting its field of service; in other words preventing it from competing with 
linoleum to the extent that it would if it were carried at the same rates. 

I cannot think that it is any part of the duty of this Board to lessen or 
prevent competition between articles intended to give like service, by giving one 
a higher freight classification than the other, unless that higher 'classification is 
otherwise amply warranted. 

My conclusions are, — 

(1) That rubber flooring and linoleum are used for the same purposes under 
like conditions; 

(2) That unless other reasons are shown, the fact that the two commodities 
compete in rendering the same service, entitle both to the same freight 
classification; 

(3) The fact that rubber flooring does not contain any proportion of com- 
mercial rubber, and is in fact chiefly composed of material that otherwise 
would be w r aste, namely worn out and useless rubber goods, properly 
debars it from being given a classification having any regard to that 
given commercial rubber in any form; 

(4) The fact that rubber flooring weighs nearly double as much per square 
yard as linoleum is an argument for a lower, and against a higher >classi- 
cation than that given linoleum. 

For these reasons I am compelled to hold that the placing of rubber flooring 
in a higher freight classification than linoleum is unjust discrimination, within 
the meaning of the Act. 

EMPTY TIN CANS, CARLOAD RATING ON 

Page 231}., Items 2-4 and 6: — I agree with the conclusions of the Assistant 
Chief Commissioner in regard to these Items, as set forth in his Draft Judgment, 
(pp. 104 to 108 inclusive). 

25486 — 12i- 



180 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

CAPS, BOTTLE 

Caps, Bottle: Iron, Steel, or Tin and Cork, Paper or Pulpboard combined, 
page £84, Items 12 and IS: Complaint of the Crown Cork and Seal Company, 
Toronto: File 33365.2. — Classification No. 17 places bottle caps under a group 
heading, which allows them to be shipped west of Fort William as part of a car- 
load, the balance of which is made up of other articles included in that group. 
Up to the present time bottle caps have not been included in any group and 
therefore could not get a carload rate by being shipped in full carloads. 

The Crown Cork and Seal Company of Toronto applied to have bottle caps 
removed from the new group classification and restored to individual classifica- 
tion. The Crown Cork and Seal Company makes only bottle caps. Having no 
other article of manufacture it usually ships in less than car lots. Other bottle 
cap manufacturers who make other articles which are of the classification in 
which bottle caps are included by Classification No. 17 must also ship their 
bottle caps in less than car lots. But if the proposed change is confirmed, these 
manufacturers will, by making up mixed carloads, be able to get carlot rate on 
less than carload lots of bottle caps, thereby putting the Crown Company, as at 
present circumstanced, at a disadvantage in reaching western customers. 

If the argument of the Crown Company is to be taken as they presented 
it, they are asking to be compelled to pay a higher rate on the greater part of 
their trade with the west than is provided by Classification No. 17. 

It is generally accepted as sound economics that manufacturer and customer 
should be brought together with the lowest possible intervening cost. This is 
the direction of the change in regard to bottle caps, made by the new classifica- 
tion No. 17. If the endeavour to reduce the cost of any certain product of eastern 
Canadian manufacture to western customers is a business injury to some of the 
manufacturers of that article, that is of course regrettable but I cannot agree 
that this Board should use the power vested in it to maintain any certain advan- 
tage now enjoyed by a single manufacturing enterprise, when that advantage 
consists in maintaining a barrier of unnecessarily high rail charges between the 
eastern manufacturer and the western consumer. 

I cannot therefore, assent to their application. 

APPLICATION CANADIAN LUMERMEN's ASSOCIATION re CHARGE FOR EXTRA HAUL ON 
LUMBER SHIPPED FROM PEMBROKE 

Report oj the Chief Traffic Officer of the Board, June 23, 1925, issued as the 

judgment of the Board 

The question here at issue relates to the propriety of assessing a charge for 
extra haul out of the direct run with respect to lumber shipped from Pembroke 
to Ottawa for dressing, etc., and reshipment to points Toronto and west thereof, 
which is handled via Canadian National Railways, The written submissions 
of both applicant and the railway company have been filed with the Board. 

The regulations governing stop-off and reshipping on lumber, carloads, for 
dressing, etc., are contained in Canadian National Railways tariff C.R.C. No. 
E-697. The tariff stipulates that, — 

" Shipments of rough lumber, carloads, for dressing, re-sawing, kiln- 
drying or sorting and reshipment, within six (6) months after arrival 
at stop-off point, may be given the benefit of through rate, from original 
shipping point to final destination, plus one (1) cent per 100 pounds, 
minimum $5 per car for stop-off (provided stop-off point is on the direct 
run, see rule C) under the conditions shown herein." 






REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 181 

Rule C which is referred to provides: — 

" C— If stop-off point is not on the direct run, a charge of 1 cent per 
ton per mile (minimum 20 miles) for haul out of direct run will be made in 
addition to stop-off charge, except that such charge will not be made 
between Sudbury Junction and Sudbury, Ont., on lumber for dressing at 
Sudbury, Ont., and reshipment to points south of Sudbury Junction, Ont. 
Short line mileage to govern on competitive traffic." 

With respect to traffic originating on the Canadian National Railways at 
Pembroke and destined to Toronto, there are three available routes: (1) via 
Golden Lake and Scotia Junction; (2) via National Junction and Ottawa; and 
(3) via National Junction and Rideau Junction; the mileages via these routes 
being 301.7, 337.2 and 322.4, respectively. 

Applicant sets out that traffic from Pembroke to Toronto or points west is 
handled by the Canadian National Railways via Ottawa; that the railway com- 
pany contends that, as the short mileage is via Golden Lake and Scotia Junc- 
tion, when the traffic is consigned, for dressing, etc., at Ottawa and reshipment, 
they are entitled to a charge for extra haul out of the direct run based on the 
difference between the mileage from Pembroke to Toronto via Golden Lake 
and Scotia Junction as against the mileage via National Junction and Ottawa. 
Applicant contends that as the railway company undertakes to move this traffic 
through Ottawa for reasons of economy or service or both, by so doing they 
establish the movement via Ottawa as the natural route for this traffic, and 
consequently are not entitled to make a charge for extra haul out of the direct run. 

Counsel for the railway company states that the rates and distances from 
each individual station must be dealt with specifically; that the rate on lumber 
from Pembroke to Toronto is based on a constructive mileage scale which is via 
Scotia Junction. He further states that if the shippers were prepared to pay 
on the basis of the actual mileage via Ottawa they might have some argument 
against the assessment of an out of line haul charge. In the issue that is here 
presented I do not see that there is any relationship between the rate itself, 
which is not in question, and the charge for a haul out of the direct run. How- 
ever, the foregoing statement of counsel for the railway company is particularly 
interesting for the reason that the specific lumber rates to which he refers are 
built up on a mileage scale^ and under this mileage scale the same rate applies 
for distances over 300 but not over 350 miles. It will be noted, therefore, that 
regardless of the mileages via the three routes, varying from 301.7 to 337.2,. 
they would all take the same rate under the mileage scale on which the tariff is 
constructed. Consequently, as the rate constructed on the mileage through 
Ottawa would be the same as through Scotia Junction, in the terms of the rail- 
way company's submission it appears that it agrees that the shippers have an 
argument against the assessment of a charge for out of line haul. 

However, in my opinion the proper determination of the issue here pre- 
sented really lies in the answer to the question, why is a charge for haul out of 
direct run justified and authorized? When the traffic is stopped off at a pcint 
on the direct run and reshipped within six months it is entitled, under the terms 
of the tariff as already quoted herein, to the through rate plus 1 cent per 100 
pounds, minimum $5 per car, for stop-off. ' If, however, the stop-off point is not 
on the direct run, obviously additional service is involved over and above what 
is required of the railway company when the stop-off point is on the direct run, 
consequently it has been held that this additional service justifies some extra 
charge therefor over and above the through rate and the stop-off charge, and 
which is authorized by the tariff provision already quoted. 

It will be further noted that the charge of 1 cent per ton per mile (minimum 
20 miles) for haul out of direct run applies " if stop-off point is not on the direct 
ran." It is stated that although the mileage via Scotia Junction is shorter the 



182 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

traffic here involved is moved through Ottawa for the convenience of the railway 
company and in the interest of being able to give better service to the traffic. 
Whatever the reason, if the traffic is handled through Ottawa, how can it be held 
that Ottawa is not " on the direct run ", and how can a charge which is justified 
and authorized for an additional service be with propriety assessed when no 
additional service, either in accord with the spirit or the wording of the tariff 
provision, as I see it, is performed? 

The Interstate Commerce Commission apparently considered and dealt 
?rith a similar issue to what is here involved, and in the case of Rea-Patterson 
Milling Company v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. A-653, stated:— 

" Where the back haul from Coffey ville to Parsons was an additional 
service performed by the carrier for its own convenience, a charge exacted 
for such service was unreasonable." 

In my opinion, a charge for haul out of direct run in this case is not shown 
to be justified or authorized by the railway company. 

IN RE CLAIM AGAINST G.T.R. ON SHIPMENT OF LUMBER 

Judgment Assistant Chief Commissioner, July 21, 1925, concurred in by Mr. 

Commissioner Boyce. 

Claim is made against the " Grand Trunk Railway, Detroit, Michigan," 
for refund of $45.56 plus interest, being the amount alleged to be overcharged 
on a carload shipment of lumber from Baptiste, Ont., to Grand Rapids, Michi- 
gan, on bill of lading dated December 23, 1921, routed via " C.N.R. and G.T.R." 

The railway had charged in accordance with the tariffed through sixth 
class rate of 53 cents per 100 pounds, from Baptiste to Grand Rapids. The 
applicants' claim is based on there having been at the time a possible combina- 
tion of 24 cents per 100 pounds from Baptiste, Ont., to ''Sarnia, plus 18 cents 
from Sarnia to Grand Rapids, Michigan. There is also a complaint in regard 
to the shipment of two cars of lumber from Fossmill, Ontario, to Detroit, 
Michigan. On these shipments the applicants claimed there should apply a 
combination rate of 37^ cents, made up of the rate of 26^ cents, Fossmill, Ont., 
to Point Edward, plus 11 cents, from Sarnia to Detroit. The through rate 
tariffed from Fossmill to Detroit at the time was 52^ cents per 100 pounds. 
The claim made in respect of the two cars from Fossmill amounts to $177.64. 

Both of the shipments iconcerning which complaint is made moved in 1921. 
The shipments from Fossmill were made on November 11, 1921, and the ship- 
ments from Baptiste on December 23, 1921. The application is not one to 
declare what should be a reasonable rate for the future, but to find that the 
rates, in so far as they were in excess of the combinations referred to, were 
unreasonable, and that refund should be made down to the basis of the com- 
binations. 

So far as a movement wholly in Canada is concerned, the Board has ruled 
" that it is a fundamental proposition, under the policy outlined in the Railway 
Act, that when a rate, whether joint or whether limited to points situated on 
one line of railway alone, has come into force in conformity with the provisions 
of the Railway Act, it is the only legal rate in respect of the traffic mentioned 
and between the points mentioned." See in the matter of Through Rates vs. 
Combination of Locals, File 9754. Reference may also be made to re Through 
Rate's on Lumber exceeding the Sum of the Locals, File 2464?; Board's Judg- 
ments and Orders, Vol. IV, p. 264 at p. 265; Complaint of F. L. Getzler, re 
Through Rates on Pig Iron, Welland to Montreal, exceeding the combination 
of clas\s and commodity rates, File 26848; and also Application of General 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 183 

Traffic Service of Chicago, III, on behalf of Woods Mobilette Company, regard- 
ing combination of rates on automobile and parts moving from Winnipeg, 
Manitoba, to Harvey, III, File 26025.1. 

Under these decisions the situation is that the through rate governs. It is 
open to attack a through rate in excess of the sum of the locals as unreasonable. 
Where the Board holds that the through rate in excess of the sum of the locals 
is unreasonable, its holding is effective for the future and has no retroactive 
effect. 

A movement from a point in Canada to a point in the United States is 
subject to the provisions of Section 338 of the Railway Act, which provides 
that "When traffic is to pass over any continuous route from .... any point 
in Canada to a foreign country, and such route is operated by two or more com- 
panies, whether Canadian or foreign, the several companies shall file with the 
Board a joint tariff for such continuous route." It was held in Woods Mobilette 
Company that the contention that the route could be made discontinuous and 
a combination of rates substituted if the through rates filed were not in har- 
mony with the statute could not be upheld. 

The applicants contend that the combination of rates would be applicable 
although the shipment was billed through and not billed forward to the Cana- 
dian point to which the Canadian factor of the combination relied on applied 
to, and rebilled therefrom on the American factor of the rate. Under confer- 
ence ruling No. 256 of the Interstate Commerce Commission, dealing with a 
movement from a point in the United States to a point in Canada it is set out 
that " Upon a movement from a domestic point to a destination in Canada 
charges were assessed at a combination of rates, both factors of which were 
on file with this Commission but which mad^ higher, and another combination 
over the same route one factor of which was on file with the Canadain Com- 
mission but not with this Commission; held that the Commission cannot award 
reparation on the latter combination." 

In the disposition which the facts warrant it is in reality unnecessary to 
emphasize the difference between the provisions of the Railway Act in regard 
to refunds, and those of the Act to Regulate Commerce and subsequent amend- 
ing legislation. Since, however, the applicant contended at the hearing that 
there was, at least, implied provision under the Railway Act to award refunds, 
reference may be made to various decisions. In Canadian Condensing Com- 
pany vs. C.P.R. Co'y, Board's File 16376, there had been a change in the mini- 
mum weight. The shipper made his arrangement on the basis of the old mini- 
mum, this working to his detriment in connection with a contract he had 
entered into, held that the erroneous assumption as to the minimum applying 
did not justify a departure from the published tariff, and that no refund could 
be allowed. See also G.T. and C.P.R. Cos., vs. Canadian and British American 
Oil Cos., 13 C.R.C. 201; also complaint of F. L. Getzler, above referred to. 
See also Dominion Concrete Co'y. vs. C.P.R. Co'y, 6 C.R.C. 514. The Board 
has no power to make a retroactive alteration in the tariff and grant rebates 
and refunds of tolls which have been charged. 

On the written submissions, and on what was submitted in evidence, 
the contention of the applicant that a through rate may ;be defeated as to 
a past transaction by a lower combination of locals, fails. The only addi- 
tional point which the applicant raised at the hearing was in regard to 
routing. He stated that combination rates via North Bay applied on lumber 
moving from Fossmill to Detroit prior to the issuance of Ransom's tariff No. 13 
(C.R.C. No. 44), effective February 29, 1920. The situation is, however, that 
at the time the shipments in question moved the tariff in question quoting a 
through rate applied. 



184 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The applicant laid stress on the fact that at the time the shipment moved 
there was no routing provided for in the tariff from Kilrush or Fossmill. The 
tariff, C.R.C. No. 44 above referred to, names a through rate from Kilrush to 
Detroit, and Fossmill while not shown in the tariff is the next intermediate 
station on the route via North Bay. As Fossmill is but seventeen miles from 
North Bay, routing via the latter point would be the shortest, and therefore 
the reasonable route in a movement to Detroit. 

The application must be dismissed. 

APPLICATION OF DALYTE ELECTRIC LIMITED re REDUCTION IN L.C.L. CLASSIFICATION 

OF ELECTRIC LAMPS 

Judgment of Assistant Chief Commissioner, July 17, 1925, concurred in by the 

Chief Commissioner. 

Incandescent electric lamps are rated double first-class L.C.L., Canadian 
Freight Classification. The rating in question has been in existence since Janu- 
ary 1, 189G. This, of course, is not necessarily conclusive, but it is to be noted 
as a fact of record. The rating of one and one-half times first-class L.C.L. is 
applied for. This is the rating of the American classification. 

As has been pointed out in many cases, citations of rate or classification 
practice in the United States are not necessarily conclusive in respect to con- 
ditions existing in Canada, unless the conditions are on all fours. - It may be 
noted in passing that while there is this difference on L.C.L., the Official and 
Western Classification territories have carload ratings of first class, while 
under the proposed Classification No. 17 second class is provided for in Canada. 

It is not understood that there is any allegation that the difference between 
the L.C.L. ratings in Canada and the United States is detrimental to Canada 
in that it enables an American product to compete more effectively in Canada. 
Applicant stated that the American competition was not serious. 

It was argued in favour of the change that there have been changed condi- 
tions, first, in regard to increased strength of the lamp. Formerly, the lamps 
had tips; it is stated that the tipless type now manufactured is much less fragile. 
So far as broken filaments are concerned, it is to be noted that the lamps in 
question are carried at owner's risk of breakage, and the railways, therefore, 
paid nothing in respect of broken filaments. Where there was an actual break- 
age of the lamp, the evidence was that the railways had paid claims, because this 
was a pretty clear indication of negligence due to rough handling. On the 
evidence submitted, it is not apparent that there has been any very appreciable 
change in regard to the amount of claims involved. 

It is stated that one change to be considered is that of improved packing 
methods. At present, the packing is in corrugated fibreboard boxes. Formerly, 
the lamps were shipped in wooden boxes .which are stated by the railways to 
afford a much heavier and stronger case than the fibreboard box now being 
used. On the evidence submitted by the Canadian Freight Association, it 
appears that on shipments made by the Canadian Tungsten Lamp Company 
in 1910, where the wooden boxes were used, there was a gross weight of 9 pounds 
per cubic foot. Shipments from the Laco-Phillips Company in 1913 in fibre- 
board boxes showed an. average weight of 5.9 pounds per cubic" foot. Another 
statement of recent shipments from the Canadian General Electric Company 
showed an average weight of 5.15 pounds per cubic foot. The applicant stated 
their shipments as a whole, in the fibreboard boxes, would average 3.75 pounds 
per cubic foot. 

On what is submitted, it would appear that the wooden container was 
heavier; that the weight per cubic foot was greater; and that as the transporta- 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 185 

tion charge was based both on the weight of the container and contents, the 
percentage of revenue to value of the article must have been greater under the 
old conditions. 

While this is true of the earlier period, the figures do not indicate, so far 
as bulk and weight are concerned, any material change in the last fifteen years 
of a character that would warrant change in classification rating based upon 
change in the type of container made use of. 

It is also contended by applicant that there has been a very considerable 
reduction in value, and that since 1920 there has been a reduction of 35 per cent 
on tungsten lamps and 50 per cent on gas-filled lamps, The evidence here was 
uncertain as it showed fluctuating prices. Mr. Ransom, of the Canadian Freight 
Association, filed an exhibit covering 16 and 32 candle-power carbon lamps, 
which were selling wholesale, in 1910, for 13.2 and 22 cents each, respectively. 
A letter on the Board's file from the Laco-Phillips Company dated July 3, 1914, 
quoted retail prices of carbon lamps at that time as between 10 and 15 cents 
each; metallised carbon filament lamps from 15 to 20 cents each; and most of 
the tungsten lamps at prices between 40 and 50 cents each. In a letter addressed 
to the Board by the Canadian Laco-Phillips Company under date of November 
19, 1915, they stated the prices for the principal sizes of tungsten lamps had 
been reduced to 30 cents. Mr. Ransom filed an exhibit covering some shipments 
in July, 1914, shewing the 40-watt lamp as retailing at 25 to 27 cents each at 
that time. He also filed an exhibit covering current prices, showing 10- to 
40-watt tungsten lamps listed at retail prices of 32 cents each, and the 60-watt 
lamp at 37 cents. Mr. Howlett, representing the applicant, challenged the 
accuracy of these latter figures and stated that their lamps are retailing at 
5 for $1. 

Retail prices in the city of Ottawa, for example, show that while Dalyte 
iamps manufactured by the applicant are retailing at 5 for $1, in case of the 
25-watt iamps, lamps of other makes, for example, the " Mazda " and " Hydro " 
are selling at 32 cents; the " Maple Leaf" at 25 cents; and the " Condor " at 
35 cents. While there have been variations in prices, apparently there is no 
great difference between the current prices of to-day and those of ten years ago. 

An exhibit introduced by the Canadian Freight Association pointed out 
that the change asked for would, so far as the transportation charge is con- 
cerned, be very slight. The inference from this is that the change of rating 
would make no appreciable difference to the consumer. In the exhibit in ques- 
tion, it was pointed out that on a shipment from Guelph to Windsor it would 
take approximately 13 lamps to make one cent of difference in freight charges; 
to Toronto, 24 lamps; to St. John and Halifax, 8 lamps; and to Winnipeg, 
3 lamps. # 

This, again, is not necessarily conclusive of the reasonableness of the exist- 
ing arrangement. If a rate or rating is unreasonable in itself, then the question of 
the incidence of the reduction is not a conclusive answer. However, the figures 
given illustrate a condition which is not new. Rate or classification reductions, 
if they are small, have great difficulty in getting down to the consumer; and, 
even if the changes are more considerable, a good part of them is apt to stick 
in some portion or portions of the cogs of the distributive machinery on the way 
to the final consumer. 

The arguments advanced by the applicant have been considered and do not 
show such a change of conditions as would justify the change in rating asked 
for. It has also to be borne in mind that various other firms concerned in the 
manufacture and distribution of this product, who would be expected to have 
made appearances if they found themselves detrimentally affected by the existing 
Classification rating, are not before us on this record. 



186 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

COMPLAINT OF TOWNS OF RIVERSIDE, TECUMSEH, et dl, re DIVISION OF EXCHANGE 
TERRITORY MADE BY BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 

Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Boyce, August 12, 1925, concurred in by the 

Assistant Chief Commissioner 

Application was made, under date October 14, 1924, by the Municipal 

Corporation of the Town of Riverside, in the county of Essex, Ontario, for an 
order. " under section 375, subsection 6, of the Railway Act, ordering the Bell 
Telephone Company of Canada, Limited, to include the whole of the said town 
of Riverside within the Windsor Base area served by the Burnside and Seneca 
Exchanges for Windsor and Walkerville by extending the boundaries of the said 
Base area, and restraining the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, Limited, 
from dividing the town of Riverside into two exchanges, and placing that part 
of the town of Riverside east of the Lauzon road, in an exchange with the town 
of Tecumseh as is proposed by it ", upon the grounds stated in the application. 

The application was supported, or endorsed by, the Essex Border Utilities 
Commission, by a resolution dated October 15, 1924, and filed with the Board. 
The resolution requested the Board " not to permit the separation of the service 
until such time as an expert study of the traffic has been made, with a view 
of determining the flow of communication". The Border Utilities Commission 
was not represented at the hearing. 

The towns of Tecumseh, Walkerville and Sandwich and the township of 
Sandwich East supported the application, and, with the city of Windsor, were 
represented by counsel at the hearing. 

So far as this application is based upon the section of the Railway Act 
referred to therein I am unable to see any such jurisdiction in the Board given 
by the section cited in the application as would support it. Section 375, sub- 
section 6 of the Railway Act is clearly irrelevant to the relief sought. The 
application, in so far as it seeks a restraining order, can only invoke what 
jurisdiction the Board possesses under section 33, subsection (2), viz., " to 
forbid the doing or continuing of any act, matter or thing which is contrary to 
this Act, or the Special Act, etc." 

This Board's jurisdiction under the Railway Act, over telephone companies, 
is essentially and solely a rate jurisdiction. The " facilities " sections of the 
Railway Act are specially excepted from its powers as to telephone companies 
by section 375 (12) of the Railway Act. That this Board has uniformly adhered 
to this principle is manifest in the following, amongst other, of its decisions, 
viz.: — 

Tinkess v. Bell Telephone Co., 20 C.R.'C. 249. 

Town of Dundas, et al. v. Bell Telephone Co., Vol. XI, Bds. Judgts., p. 83. 
. British Columbia Municipalities' Complaint re new Exchange established at 
Kerrisdale, B.C. Board's Judgments, etc., Dec. 1, 1921 (Vol. XI, 
p. 325.) 

Complaint of Corporation of the District of Saanich, B.C., and the Cadboro 
Bay Committee, Cadiboro Bay, B.C., re proposed extension of the 
Gordon Head Telephone Exchange, by including ,Mt. Tolmie and 
Cadboro Bay Districts, British Columbia Telephone Co. Board's 
Judgments, etc. (1925), Vol. XV, p. 63, and cases therein referred to. 

This was pointed out at the hearing to the applicants as the following 
citations from the record, volume 441, will shew (p. 1021) : — 

" Commissioner Boyce: Then it is purely a question of rates, is 
it not? 

"Mr. Furlong: It is a question of rates and service. We cannot 
get the service with the exchange they put in. 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 187 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner (presiding) : You must re- 
member that the Board's jurisdiction is a rate jurisdiction only. 

"Commissioner Boyce: Absolutely. What they have done in the 
way of extra facilities, we have nothing to do with. Our jurisdiction is 
confined solely to telephone rates. The question is, whether they can 
justify as a rate proposition what they have done. The onus, therefore, 
would be upon the telephone company. 

" Mr. Furlong: I think so." 

(Page 1031): — 

" The Assistant Chief Commissioner: As Commissioner Boyce has 
very pertinently pointed out, this Board has no control over the question 
of telephone service; it only has control of rates. It seems to me to boil 
itself down to this: are the rates which it is proposed to put into force 
in Tecumseh reasonable, or are they unreasonable?" 

(Page 1053) :— 

"Commissioner Boyce: You are not now addressing yourself to this 
original complaint. There is no jurisdiction under the statute that has 
been pointed out. 

" Mr. Furlong: No. I think our whole remedy now is on the 
question of rates." 

It is clear then that as regards the application as framed, which is con- 
cerned with complaints as to, or consequent upon, the division of boundaries of 
the Windsor Exchange area, from the ruling of the Assistant Chief Commis- 
sioner, presiding at the hearing, in which I concurred, and do now concur, based 
upon the authorities I have cited, and from the admission of counsel for the 
applicant, the Board has no jurisdiction to grant any of the relief asked for in 
that application. The parties were allowed to proceed with the hearing as a 
complaint as to the reasonableness of the rates proposed in the tariffs filed to 
be charged in the revised exchange areas affected and in line with what was 
said, per curiam, in the Judgment of the Board in the Cadboro Bay Case, 
counsel for the Telephone Company on the suggestion of the Board, and with- 
out demur or argument, voluntarily assumed the onus of establishing, that the 
rates in the tariffs filed for the revised exchange areas were just and reasonable. 

Prior to the division of exchange areas decided upon and effected by the 
Telephone Company Tecumseh and Riverside and all territory. east thereof were 
served by and were within the Windsor Base area. The service was largely 
through rural party lines, and with the rapid growth of Windsor and the out- 
lying and rural sections tributary to Riverside and Tecumseh the company 
decided it could better serve these outlying sections by establishing an exchange 
at Tecumseh. The company was supported in this decision by the following 
letter from the Municipal Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh: — 

" municipal corporation of the town of tecum seh, 

Tecumseh, Ont., October 13, 1924. 
" Mr. F. W. Dewar, 

" Manager, Bell Telephone Company, 

" Windsor, Ontario. 

" Dear Sir, — Herewith is a copy of a resolution passed by the Muni- 
cipal Council of the Town of Tecumseh at a meeting held on the 8th 
instant. 



188 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

" Moved, seconded and carried, that this council is in favour that the 
Bell Telephone Company establish a telephone exchange in Tecumseh and 
that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. Dewar urging him to 
rush the installation." 

" Very truly yours, 

" E. U. Dugal, 

" Clerk of Tecumseh/' 

The object was to relieve the traffic load of the Windsor Exchange and give, 
as was desired, a better service to the rural sections then attached thereto 1 . Before 
tiie new exchange at Tecumseh was established there were 85 subscribers in the 
Tecumseh section; the number of new subscribers is 51, and contracts in hand 
yet to be served 24, a total of 160 subscribers — so that the number of subscribers 
was about doubled in that section by the establishment of the Tecumseh Exchange. 
The above figures incjude that part of Riverside going back to the Lauzon 
road, which intersects the territorial limits of the town of Riverside. The popu- 
Uttion of Tecumseh and Riverside, respectively, is said to be 1,700 and 1,500, 
respectively, many of the latter being, it is said, seasonal residents from 
Detroit occupying summer residences. 

Before the Tecumseh Exchange was established the exchange rates in that 
territory were governed by the Tariff C.R.C. No. 5320, issued April 14, 1921, 
effective April 22, 1921, and were as follows: — 

A. "Within the municipal limits of Windsor and Walkerville, Ontario as they existed as 
of January 1, 1916 (per mensem) — 

(a) 
Industrial Line Two Party Line Four Party Line 
Station Station Station 

Business $3 08 $2 46 $2 05 

Residence 2 57 2 05 1 85 

(a) Applicable outside the base rate area only with excess mileage. See "B". 

B. Outside the base rate area indicated in "A" and within exchange area — 

Individual and Party Line Stations Rural Line Station 

(a) (b) 

The rates for main stations are those in "A" plus excess 

mileage charges $2 05 $2 57 

By their tariff C.R.C. 5753, issued November 7, 1924, effective December 
8, 1924, (being the tariff in question) the company proposed the following scale 
of charges applicable to the New Tecumseh Exchange, viz (per mensem) — 

Individual Line Two Party Line 

A. Stations Station 

Business $2 05 $185 

Residence 2 05 1 85 

B. Outside the base rate area indicated in "A" and within the exchange area. 

Rural Line Station 
Individual and Party Line Stations (a) (b) 

The rates for main stations are those shown in "A" plus 

excess mileage charges. . .. , $1 54 $3 05 

The reductions in tolls to local subscribers, effected by the last cited tariff, 
are apparent and are substantial — viz: 

(a) On individual line station, business 'phones, a reduction of $1.03 per month, and on 
residence 52 cents per month. 

(b) On two party line station, business, a reduction of 61 cents per month, and on 
residence a reduction of 20 cents per month. 

(c) On four party line station, business, a reduction of 51 cents per month, and on 
residence a reduction of 31 cents per month. 

With the concentration of formerly scattered lines afforded, at the Tecumseh 
Exchange at substantially reduced rates to subscribers of that exchange there 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 189 

can be little question as to the reasonableness of the action of the company in 
establishing that exchange. Its aim is, while relieving the congestion of the 
.Windsor Exchange caused by the wide and unwieldy area embraced in it to 
afford better service to the outlying areas, in growing sections, and this, I think, 
has been accomplished. 

In addition to the above tolls, and as a consequence of the separation of 
the Tecumseh territory from the Windsor area, and its constitution as a sep- 
arate exchange area, a toll charge of 10 cents to Windsor Exchange is applic- 
able. This is the minimum long distance toll, and although objected to, the 
objection to it cannot, under the circumstances be maintained. It is, in the 
circumstances, reasonable and just. 

Objection was taken by counsel for Riverside that the westerly limit of 
the Tecumseh new area was Lauzon road, running through the town of River- 
side, so that the westerly side of the road was in one exchange and the easterly 
side in the new — thus imposing a toll charge 'between two sections of the town. 
Doubtless such an arrangement of boundaries of telephone exchange areas has 
its disadvantages, in this case not so great as would appear, because the town 
is of large area, and its population small, scattered, and there are many tem- 
porary residents. But, as has been pointed out, the Board's powers are limited 
as regards telephone companies to tolls, and no order it could make within its 
jurisdiction could remedy this arrangement, and I am unable to find that it 
can have any effect upon the reasonableness of the rates which was the issue 
before us. Doubtless this situation will right itself by the natural growth of 
'.he town, impelling the telephone company, when the traffic justifies it, to re- 
arrange its exchange area boundaries to the greater satisfaction of the town 
of Riverside. 

Much was said as to the influence of the large population of the city of 
Detroit, and its environs upon the frequency of calls, and, as argued, its con- 
sequent factor in the question of rates. As pointed out by the Assistant Chief 
Commissioner at the hearing, and in agreement with him, I do not consider that 
foreign traffic can be taken as a factor in determining the reasonableness of 
tolls under the Railway Act. Neither am I prepared to say that, when weighed, 
that factor could dislodge the reasonableness of the tolls imposed by the traffic 
now in question. 

The principles laid down by the Board in the Tinkess Case, herein cited, 
and in other cases referred to, are clearly applicable in the present case and 
should be affirmed and applied as apposite to present conditions. What was 
said in that part of the judgment in the Cadboro Bay Case, written by me, 
as to the onus of proof as to reasonableness of rates in cases like that then 
under consideration, and which is similar to present conditions, and which 
was not concurred in by a majority of the Board, has been voluntarily adopted 
by the company which, at the hearing, assumed the onus of reasonableness of 
rates and discharged it, without any evidence dehors that reasonableness bein^ 
tendered by or on behalf of any of the applicants. The rates in the tariff 
complained of are, in my opinion, in themselves reasonable and just, and their 
tendency is downward, and they are, in comparison with other tolls for similar 
.service in many similar areas, just, reasonable, and proper, and under present 
conditions of service ought to be allowed as of the date the tariff became 
effective, that is, from the date the Tecumseh Exchange became operative. 

Collection of tolls under the tariff was suspended by the company upon 
the suggestion of the Board, upon the complaints being lodged, it being under- 
stood that the suspension was not to deprive the company of these revenues 
should the tariff be sustained. The company suspended collection of the rates 
in the tariff keeping account of the business and calls. The tariff being now 
s-.istaineci any further obligation on the company, as to suspension of collection, 
is discharged, and it will be at liberty to collect these tolls, under the tariff, 
as if there had been no suspension, voluntary or enforced, of the collection 
thereof. 



190 RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA 

The formal application to the Board, is, as I have pointed out, and as 
counsel for the applicants concedes, beyond the jurisdiction of the Board, and 
no order can be made upon it. The telephone company, however, assumed 
the onus of showing that the tariff was reasonable and has discharged that onus. 
Nothing, therefore, remains but to dismiss the application and order will go 
accordingly. The company will now be at liberty to make its collections of 
tolls under the tariff, collection of which the company suspended under the 
conditions I have mentioned, for services given under the tariff, as if such 
collection had never been suspended. 

APPLICATION CANADIAN CAR DEMURRAGE BUREAU T6 SO-CALLED CONSTRUCTIVE 

PLACEMENT NOTICES 

Riding, September 19, 1925 
The Board was asked for an informal ruling on the point: — 

" Is a railway company justified in serving notice of constructive 
placement to consignee, covering cars containing shipments in bond, prior 
to delivery permit being received from Customs?" 

The matter was referred to the Chief Traffic Officer of the Board, who, 
under date of July 29, 1925, submitted his report. 

Copies of the report were sent to the parties with an intimation that it had 
been adopted by the Board as its interim ruling, opportunity being reserved to 
either of them to file exceptions thereto within two weeks; the exceptions, if any, 
thereafter to be considered by the Board. 

Further submissions were filed under date of August 13, 1925, by The 
Brant ford Cordage Company, Limited. 

On August 20, the Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau advised the Board that 
it had no further submissions to make. 

These submissions have been considered, and set out below is the report 
of the Chief Traffic Officer of the Board, which the Board now adopts as its 
ruling in the matter: — 

RULING 

" In letter dated April 15, the Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau, in 
paragraph 1, sets out: — 

' The Brantford Cordage Company, Brantford, Ont., have taken 
exception to being served with notice of constructive placement by 
the Canadian National Railways, covering cars containing bonded 
goods consigned to them, which have not been released by Customs, 
taking the position that such notice was of no effect, that to be 
effective same should have been served after Customs had been 
satisfied/' 
" In the closing portion of letter the Car Demurrage Bureau asks 

for an informal ruling from the Board on the point: — 

' Is a railway company justified in serving notice of constructive 
placement to consignee, covering cars containing shipments in bond 
prior to delivery permit being received from Customs?' 
" The Brantford Cordage Company in their letter of April 23 state 

they concur in the request of the Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau for 

informal ruling on the point mentioned in paragraph 1 of their letter of 

April 15. 

" I quote below relevant portions of \h.Q Canadian Car Demurrage 

Rules and have underlined the words that seem to be applicable to the 

issue here raised: — 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS 191 

Rule 2 (b) — ' Delivery of cars upon private sidings or indus- 
trial interchange tracks shall constitute notification whereof to the 
consignee. If such delivery cannot be made owing to such tracks 
being fully occupied, or from any other cause beyond the control of 
the carrier, written notice of readiness so to deliver shall be given and 
shall constitute notification to the consignee for the purposes of these 
rules, in which case the free time shall be computed from 7 o'clock 
a.m. of the first following day.' 

" Rule 7 (b) — ' Delivery of cars to private sidings or indus- 
trial interchange tracks shall be considered to have been made when 
such cars have 'been placed thereon, or when they would have been 
so placed but for some condition for which the consignee is respon- 
sible. When cars can not be so placed, the carrier shall notify the 
consignee in writing of its inability to deliver the cars because of the 
condition of the private siding or interchange tracks, or because of 
other conditions attributable to the consignee. This shall be con- 
sidered Constructive Placement.' 

" The Brantford Cordage Company having a private siding, under 
the provisions of demurrage rule 2 (b) delivery of cars upon said private 
siding constitutes notification thereof to the consignee. If such delivery 
cannot be made for any cause beyond the control of carrier, written notice 
of readiness so to deliver shall be given and is of the same effect as a 
constructive placement notice. Demurrage rule 7 is more in the nature of 
an interpretation and is of course related to demurrage rule 2 (6). There 
would be nothing inconsistent with demurrage rules in giving constructive 
placement notice and notice of arrival at the same time. 

" Delivery of cars to private sidings cannot at times be made because 
of such tracks being already fully occupied, and also that some cars are 
being held awaiting clearance by consignee from customs. In this case, 
under the wording of the rules as above quoted and the underlined portions 
thereof, I am of opinion that the carrier is entitled to notify the consignee 
of its inability to deliver the cars because of the condition of the private 
siding, or because of other conditions attributable to the consignee, which 
may include, amongst other things, delay in clearance from customs, and 
that consequently on the point here raised the ruling is that constructive 
placement notice may, under the conditions described in the rules, be 
served before cars are cleared from customs, where there is an accumula- 
tion of cars for the consignee's private siding, and that it is not incumbent 
upon the railway to withhold service of such constructive placement notice 
until after customs requirements have 'been satisfied. 

" The foregoing ruling doe